I'm missing something with this drone story evidently.

If someone here in America is targeted as being a terrorist, why don't we just arrest him/her? Isn't that WHAT WE DO here? This is a quite difficult task in certain other places in the world, but here?

Just knock on the damn door and say - come with me.

Pat...that is my question. The Administration brought this entire thing on by not leaving asserting they could use the power without limitation other than those currently in place for overseas actions.

Pat Boston-7793618

That would be good if you want to hear what they have to say. Now on the other hand, if they have incriminating evidence & you want to shut them up. Send in a Drone & blow them up & the cover up can continue. This isn't a Left/Right thing. This is a Law thing. Like you said, just arrest them. For everyone wanting to give Obama all this power, remember , there may be a time very soon that there will be a Republican President in the White House that you don't like.

While I have concerns over the current drone policies and related items such as the Patriot Act, I don't think the filibuster is a productive way to discuss these issues.

The problem was that Holder tried to use typical 'legalese' (it would be hard for me to imagine a scenario, but...........) to answer the question instead of just giving a straight yes or no.

Lawyers always couch their answers in such a way that they can later claim "that's not what I really said", or "you misunderstood what I meant".

"I do not think the question deserves an answer" says Sen Graham.

Oh yes it does deserve an answer. We never know how far our public servants/lawyers will go to protect our "freedoms."

Scott, The President must uphold the Constitution, why don't you tell him that about illegal immigrants? You can not put the American military on the ground in the U.S. you should not be able to use these unman-ed weapons of the military. Putting them in the hands of POLITICIANS is even more dangerous.

The Presidents mandate is to protect the citizens of this country from both foreign and domestic threats. Holder was also very clear. Using a drone to kill someone at Starbucks would NOT be an appropriate use of force, and any President who did so, regardless of party, would be impeached, and likely imprisoned.

This was nothing more than a self made drama, and likely more for Rand's presidential ambitions rather than anything useful.

The idea here is that if you gain intelligence, say of someone who has built a dirty bomb for example (a home made nuclear weapon), and that this person has been located, but attempts to capture may result in a standoff, or worst case, a suicide detonation in a populated area, you would simply use a drone. The constitution already gives the president wide latitude to protect his citizens against this type of threat.

McCain was correct, and this rhetoric doesn't deserve a response. It is just that. Rhetoric designed to incite a base, or to promote a personal agenda.

Rick-3416939

How is this any different then under George Herbert Walker BUSH? It's not, its exactly the same. I have serious concerns about Obama/Drone program, but the minute a terrorist attacked this nation.. and we found out that it could have been STOPPED with a drone attack, then what?

P.S. Would you be thinking the same thing if the NRA had a drone program? Remember, the NRA and Republicans say "2nd Amendment - Right to Bear Arms".

As for this article, nothing more fun to watch then the republicans battling each other.

There should be rules against temper tantrums that bring productivity to a stop like this crap.

Did you feel the same way when Reid did it in 2003?

AlexM,

The country and government aren't just YOURS either, so get over your US/THEM mentality. The constitution is for both liberals and conservatives.

Rick,

Where do you get your information? $50Million for uniforms? That's enough to outfit the entire Army. I call BS. Sort of like the $200Million a day BS for Obama to travel to India.

Just because you read it somewhere don't make it true.

Tweet, h/t TObama D:

I give up. RT @JuddLegum Rand Paul on CNN right now saying that he supports drone strikes against Americans if they pose an imminent threat.

The problem was that Holder tried to use typical 'legalese' (it would be hard for me to imagine a scenario, but...........) to answer the question instead of just giving a straight yes or no.

Is the question of using a drone against an American citizen on American soil as simple as "yes or no"?

It is easy for me to say that I am opposed to capital punishment right now and it is easy for me to say that I do not envision a scenario where I would agree to capital punishment. Would my answer change, however, if it was a member of my own family who was killed in a particularly brutal and evil way and they asked me if the perpetrator deserved to die?

On face value, no, there is no imaginable scenario where one could see using a drone against a citizen on our own soil. We never imagined that people would hijack planes and fly them into buildings, either.

AlexM-3929653

Yea, that's the big thing that you @!$%#ing libs seem to forget. You're all for this progressive 'forward' bull@!$%#, and you seem to forget that a @!$%# load of us really don't like this progressive @!$%#.

We haven't forgotten that there are still quite a few Americans that would like to return to the 19th Century. The problem is that the rest of the world is moving forward and we can either keep up or go the way of the dinosaur. You want to gather all your "stuff" around you and wait for death...fine. But you don't get to take the rest of us with you.

But yet you call us racists, bigots, xenophobes and whatever big fancy word your thesaurus throws out at you, and then shove it down our throats.

If the shoe fits...wear it! Your party and it's policies have alienated women and minorities. Your base is pretty much narrowed down to middle-age white men and women who probably wouldn't object if you forced them to wear burkas.

As for something more direct, the reason paul did this is to get it nailed down in writing what obama can and can't do with drones. I realize you libs pretty much blindly follow obama without paying attention to anything he's really doing, but he will use any trick in the book to get around law he doesn't like (immigration, FaF, obamacare, the list goes on) just like the chicago thug he is. Paul is trying to get him nailed to the wall to make sure he doesn't use drones in a way they shouldn't.

While I agree with you that we need the laws and "rules of engagement" nailed down regarding drones and assassinations of American Citizens, most everything else you are saying is crap. Try to remember the Patriot Act was pushed through by the Bush Administration and he is responsible for removing the right of Habeas corpus from American Citizens.

I would expect nothing less from those two (McCain and Graham) Neocon/psuedo-con war mongers

Dingle,

What "liberties" are being "taken away" by Obama? I just don't buy it. A background check on buying a gun? Actual penalties for straw gun purchases? BFD. Everything else is carry forward from Bush.

Obama is doing what all Presidents do which is to hedge and maintain flexibility with an eye toward the unknown, and concern over precedent for future presidents. Bush authorized some crazy stuff. This "theoretical" pales in comparison to his "actual."

I didn't (don't) like the Patriot act, but no one is pushing for it's repeal (you guys especially), so why is all the complaint about Obama?

Plus, as Pat pointed out above, why would this ever be necessary? Send in the FBI and arrest the guy.

@Alex. Calm down. I'm a progressive in the real sense. I voted for Obama because he is closer to my beliefs than NitWitMitt but I'd prefer someone who doesn't believe in Imperialistic stuff like this. I agree that this should be discussed. This and the NDAA, or is this part of that, are really strange and seemingly unconstitutional acts. Like the Patriot Act instituted by Bush. We are slowly losing our freedoms in the name of combating terrorism. But the problem is that the terrorists are exploiting our freedoms to attack us. So what do we do? We put a band-aid on it until we can curtail the issue. Not the best of practices. Real Progressive politics deals with a proactive style of governance than a reactionary displayed by the last two presidents.

I suggest that if you want to get pissed off at progressive ideas, think and read more about what real progressive's believe, instead of burrying your head in the sand and pretending that you actually know. See the thing about us "Progressive's" and our thesauruses is that we read them to learn because learning is how we become smart. Smart people tend to have a better time in life than those who remain ignorant and rant about stuff they have no clue about. Smart people tend to look at factual data and rely on logic versus ignorant people that rely on gossip and emotion. Cool heads keep controlin. Hot heads keep a rollin.

CA,

I think you have a history understanding problem. Brownshirts were the thugs beating up communists, intellectuals and jews. Johntho isn't advocating THAT kind of "law and order" stuff. That sounds more like something you'd be up for.

Morgs74, you do realize that police kill criminals every day, without 'due process'? If a criminal is an imminent threat and lethal force is required, they can and do use it.

Multiply that by someone categorized as a terrorist, with the potential to kill hundreds, or thousands of people. I have no problem with this person being taken out before they harm large masses of people.

Any time this was used, it would require oversight, just as an internal investigation is always required whenever an officer discharges their weapon. There is no reason to expect that any standing President would use this without any oversight. Rand Paul is implying the ridiculous and he knows it.

If there is someone with a dirty bomb about to kill 50,000 people at a football game, I have zero problems with that person being killed on the spot by any means necessary to prevent them from setting off a WMD.

Rick-3416939

Americans now have a government under Obama that claims the power to execute its own citizens on its own soil without trial, but cannot find a way to afford public tours of government buildings.

Want to cite the statement regarding the power to execute American Citizens on our own soil? I'll wait.

Did you hear about the agency that released 2,000 inmates citing the “sequester” while at the same time placing an order for $50 million in new uniforms?

They did not place an order. Did you not read the article or are you simply lying to try and make a point? They signed a contract because their previous contract expired.

With the US mired in the worst recovery in history, Obama just doesn't appear as smart as he is rumored to be, or as capable.

Who are you comparing him to...? It sure as hell can't be Bush, he put us here. By the way, how about citing the source for your statement that this is the "worst recovery in history". Again, I'll wait.

What really bothers me is through the use of media and paranoia, our representatives have come to the conclusion that there are 300 million potential terrorists in this country, and that we as a society should be willing to give up our due process rights to protect us from what is probably a percentage so small it wouldn't even register. IMHO drones while amazing weapons are weapons of terrorism. They should never be allowed on US soil. Arrest me, fine, but give me the protections we as Americans have a right to.

Guilty until proven innocent. Oooops Sorry even that can no longer apply.

Ol_Doc

Not to get into a pissing match, but have you read this.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2011/12/31/statement-president-hr-1540

I so luv manufacturing hatred for something which NEVER has happened. :)

Republicans just luv to make up issues where there's are none.

fissile,

We are slowly losing our freedoms in the name of combating terrorism.

Yes, that's what's driving it: fear of terrorism.

What many of the Obama-objectors are saying is that Obama is doing this to turn the country into some kind of socialist dictatorship. That's totally dishonest and they know it.

I don't like it either and I don't think it was EVER necessary under Bush either. However, given that Obama would be crucified if he pulled back on any of these policies and something bad happened.

Look at the reaction to Bengazi for crying out loud. He HAS to continue it, he has no choice.

Johntho

Not too soon deerhunter, haven't we suffered from republican presidents enough? Remember one thing, it was a republican president that suspended Habeas Corpus and not one of the right wing pus here said anything. This is all political meant to make points. The thing is, this is our government. Not yours or mine, but ours.

Puh-lease! Plenty of people spoke up, you just obviously have trouble listening to anyone but yourself. For every Republican who didn't stand up and say something about the PA and suspending Habeas Corpus, there was a Democrat sitting there nodding along in agreement with the tactic. Stop acting like the Dems are above all this. They sat around while Obama renewed the PA (with more unconstitutional measures) AND when he signed the NDAA, which is the PA on steroids. The GOP and the Dems are busy railroading US citizens by passing legislation that infringes on our Constitutionally guaranteed rights to due process and everything that entails. Meanwhile -- they can all count on lackeys like you to try to continue the farce that this issue is Party-related. IT'S NOT!!

Eric Holder, the Attorney General of the United States, said, yes it would be legal to target American citizens in the country if the administration deemed them to be a threat; THIS IS INSANE, we have a Constitution which requires legal due process, Holder must have lost his mind to say such a thing.

As for Senator McCain, he is suffering from early Alzheimer's disease, he is no longer a factor in American politics, he needs to be in a nursing home where he can get the care he so badly needs.

Separate the man from the office. This is not an attack on President Obama or an attack on Barack Obama the man(at least for me it isn't). The issue is do we as citizens want the Executive Branch to have the authority to suspend the Fifth Amendment? Remember, on January 20, 2017 Barack Obama will no longer be the President.

I speak from experience in blindly supporting someone because of the letter after their name: I used to be a card carrying boot licking war is good Fox News NeoCon drone.

From Federalist 51:

"If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself."

It's hard lately to agree with McCain but I will agree Rand Paul is one big J-Off...............

It just shows how twisted the topic is when McCain and Graham are supporting Obama!

SmBusOwnerinNY

Who are "you guys?"

As for what liberties, actual and proposed:

Habeas Corpus

The right to keep and bare arms

Protection against unreasonalbe search and seizure

The burgioning police state in combination with overcriminalization.

Income taxes.

The drug war,

DHS

TSA

Should I keep going?

Didn't take Obama long to brainwash these two guys in their recent meeting.

Paul is certainly within his rights to stand up for what he believes in protecting the American people and SHOULD NOT be criticized by two of his own party.

McCain and Graham could wait to seize the opportunity to advance THEIR agenda and political ambitions.

Eric Holder, the Attorney General of the United States, said, yes it would be legal to target American citizens in the country if the administration deemed them to be a threat; THIS IS INSANE, we have a Constitution which requires legal due process, Holder must have lost his mind to say such a thing.

Did the gunman who opened fire on the state trooper deserve due process when the trooper shot and killed him?

The drones should follow the same rules as a piloted F-16 fighter jet. Really the only difference in the two is where the pilot sits. An F-16 can fly over the U.S.A and shoot a U.S citizen just as dead and they've been around a lot longer. Where is the outrage? Rand Paul should have voiced concerns when we first started fitting aircraft with weapons I guess. Seems to me he is just a tad late. This discussion was already settled long ago. Maybe he just wants to scare older folk with evil drone talk?

There was a time when I honestly thought this was where all the smart people gathered, but that assumption is long gone, most lack common sense and a PET MONKEY would be smarter, it's like the GUN issue NO ONE is trying to take anyone guns away yet people will always hop on that, now its this, We wouldn't even be talking about it if it was on Bush's watch, did anyone say that they were going to use Drones "NO" its just an option and besides that most of the Na Sayers have NO problem with shooting an un-armed person because of the Stand Your Ground BS, that is even worst because its an individual making that single call but Gee, no big deal there, and you people aren't complaining about that.

All we have to do is sit back and watch the republican party eat its self. Lol

The republican party is the party who can't agree with each other.

The republican is the party that will bring America to its knees.

Did the gunman who opened fire on the state trooper deserve due process when the trooper shot and killed him?

That's the point Da Noid.

The President and his administration was not defining what "Imminent" meant, and it had been purposely left vague for overseas fighting, and now that it's being brought to our shores, it needs to be defined, so that the current President, or any future President, cannot confuse the meaning.

When in the "act of a deadly crime", then no due process is needed, as there is an immediate "imminent" threat to life. However, aside from that, due process is required by the Constitution for all Americans.

The President needs to define the legal meaning for imminent in regards to said tactics so that it can be well defined and never misconstrued. Anything short of that would leave an opening for current or future Presidents to take advantage of this and kill US Citizens on US soil, without due process, indiscriminately!!

This is not a right or left issue...it's a Constitutional issue.

We already know that our government are a bunch of power-grabbing, tyrannical egomaniacs. However, one problem I have is when people still refer back to Bush.

Itsabouttime wrote: How is this any different then under George Herbert Walker BUSH? It's not, its exactly the same. Would you be thinking the same thing if the NRA had a drone program?

First, it is EXACTLY THE SAME; secondly, the NRA is not commander-in-chief, though they do adhere to the Constitution more than Obama. I didn't like Bush, didn't vote for Bush...either of them. The issue is that Obama IS DOING THE EXACT SAME THING AS BUSH AND OTHER PRESIDENTS, but the media and Obama supporters ignore that fact while continuing to extol his every decision. If two people randomly shot, raped, or stabbed victims, is it not equally wrong? Do we give a pass to one and not the other? I blame Obama for insane policies that weaken our nation, but I abhor the media for not reporting, not being honest, and for coddling a President that has received pass after pass when he should be pushed to give reasonable answers. Why couldn't the White House simply say, "NO, we will not kill US citizens on US soil with drones"? That should have been easy to answer.

From the article:

Graham said flatly that Obama would not use a drone against a noncombatant sitting in a café somewhere in the United States.

But the real issue is not whether or not Obama does such a dastardly deed. The real question is whether another President someday may decide to do it.

john-737278

Ol_Doc

Not to get into a pissing match, but have you read this.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2011/12/31/statement-president-hr-1540

As you say John, not to get into a pissing contest, I have read it...cover to cover. In my job it was required reading before it was passed out of conference and was sent to the floor. What many people fail to take note of is the exemption language regarding American Citizens. Authorized Use of Military Force relates to Non-Citizens overseas. The FBI has jurisdiction over domestic cases of terrorism. It is good to have this discussion because use of drones by either military or non-military agencies was not addressed, but nothing authorizes assassination of US citizens on US soil.

I have to say that I agree with DJ422465 about the WMD but you wouldn't send in a drone strike. The explosion would trigger the bomb. My problem is not the use against an immediate threat. Imminent however is a different story. I believe that it is a slippery slope. When you give someone the ability, especially those who are in power, more times than not, they act on that. Remember Orwell: Power Corrupts and Absolute Power Corrupts Absolutely. I just think a drone strike on American soil is unnecessary. Since it would be unnecessary, there should be no problem in not allowing them in law. Then, there would be no slope to slip down. And while I agree that Bush started this erosion of liberty with the patriot act, that doesn't mean we have to continue down that road just because

The real question is whether another President someday may decide to do it.

Bingo GreenTimer!

Although I do not support Rand as I think he is an ignorant young man, I cannot support Presidents Obama's spying on us and US through drones.

His dedication to technology over that of life and actual learning while in 1st-12th grade will be his downfall!

People are not machines! And as he puts more and more emphasis on Machines And Technological Engineering than on people and quality of life---he fails the people and refuses to acknowledge it!

drones while amazing weapons are weapons of terrorism. (john-737278 1.34)

nothing more needs to be said....on this^.

Now, does anyone else think McCain is a sociopath? I do

Sociopaths are masters are presenting themselves as heroes with high morals and philosophy, yet underneath it they are the true criminal minds in society who steal, undermine, deceive, and often incite emotional chaos among entire communities. They are masters at turning one group of people against another group while proclaiming themselves to be the one true savior. Wherever they go, they create strife, argument and hatred, yet they utterly fail to see their own role in creating it. They are delusional at so many levels that their brains defy logical reasoning.

Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/036112_sociopaths_cults_influence.html#ixzz2Msrs9oKp

and I tend to be dead middle or just a degree right.

What's offensive Mr. Graham and Mr. McCain is that you are not demanding the answer to the question of who all gave approval to assassinate a 16 year-old boy, American citizen Abdulrahman al-Awlaki, with no judicial review! THAT'S what's offensive!

When the Obama administration's excuse for the murder is: "I would suggest that you should have a far more responsible father if they are truly concerned about the well-being of their children. I don't think becoming an al-Qaeda jihadist terrorist is the best way to go about doing your business" (Gibbs) it is NOT an acceptable explanation for the separate target killing of the child. Abdulrahman al-Awlaki was an individual who like the rest of us did NOT have any ability to choose our parents. But yet the Obama administration murdered him anyway because his FATHER was a bad guy.This was not collateral damage, this was a separate targeted murder of an American citizen and the question of who ordered it should NOT go away!

The President and his administration was not defining what "Imminent" meant, and it had been purposely left vague for overseas fighting, and now that it's being brought to our shores, it needs to be defined, so that the current President, or any future President, cannot confuse the meaning.

...but isn't there a risk in seeking an artificial definition of "imminent threat" and don't we possibly tie our hands by that artificial definition?

I believe we're in agreement that there have to be some VERY EXTREME circumstances where the this might come into play. At this point, however, aren't we dealing with hypotheticals and probabilities?

Point of clarification:

Remember Orwell: Power Corrupts and Absolute Power Corrupts Absolutely

Lord Acton said:

absolute power corrupts absolutely

Ol_Doc

Actually, it says, yes I have been given the authority, I have a problem with it, but will never use it. Not that no one ever can or that he can't.

The NDAA gave this power to the Executive. It does not state that American citizens can not be targets. What it states is that the military is given the authority to arrest, detain indefinitely, or kill anyone that is deemed to be a terrorist with no clear outline of what is terroristic. And if the military is given that authority on US soil, then the militaries commander is ultimately in charge.

And since the forties the US military has NO authority on US soil.

Good for Paul! Lifers like McCain and Graham are the reason the GOP can't win elections. They have no balls, and will back off from any issue as soon as they get a little negative press from the media pukes. Do they not realize that this issue crosses party lines?....plenty of Dems are also against the drone policy.

Ol Doc, please google worst economic recovery in US history and You won't have to wait any longer. An according to You liberals, or Progressives, or whatever the Hell You call Yourselves, the current congress keeps Barry from turning this thing around, then it would be accurate to say that the super majority of Democraps in Bush's last Two years put Us where We were 5 years ago. Obama has had 5 years too move Us in the right direction, and Has failed miserably ! If Bush would've been in office the last 4 years, I guarantee You would've been screaming like a bitch, and wouldn't of voted for Him !

The idea that the current administration thinks that it would ever be acceptable to use a military drone to kill an American citizen on US soil is frightening. There is no basis in the Constitution and in fact it is expressly prohibited for the US military to be used against US civilians on US soil. To do so would require the suspension of posse comitatus which must never occur for anything short of an all out civil war. With the definition of imminent that this administration has use in approving drone strikes overseas the idea that they could use this same standard to kill an American citizen on US soil would be unconstitutional. The extra judicial killing of a citizen on US soil by the military or anyone else for that matter should never be allowed.

Da Noid

Did the gunman who opened fire on the state trooper deserve due process when the trooper shot and killed him?

In that case there is documented probable cause for his action.

The idea with the drones doing the killing with no due process is a totally different story. If the trooper pulled a guy over and shot him with no warning, no arrest, just shot him dead in his car without a warrant or anything else, we'd call that murder. If the government does it with drones, I feel we should call it the same thing.

This isn't about people in the middle of an act being stopped where there is probable cause. This is more about situations where they are not an immediate threat possibly being killed.

In his filibuster Paul had approvingly quoted an article by National Review writer Kevin Williamson which said, “As satisfying as putting Jane Fonda on a kill list might have been, I don’t think our understanding of the law would have approved such a thing

Would finding it "satisfying" to put an American citizen on a kill list render unable to pass a sanity test for gun ownership? Nah, I s'pose not. Hey, wanting to be able to kill should not be a bar to owning a gun.

So McCain rips Paul. Since McCain co-authored the NDAA of 2012 he shows himself to be more interested in as a legislator versus the citizens position. Since when should a legislator be so afraid of the citizens who elected him to office he would write and pass legislation to kill or imprison those same citizens without due process? Does he know something the rest of us don't? Or have all the years of public "service" finally taken a toll on his ability to reason and apply logic? Since when has it been a good idea for the legislators to ignore the Constitution that gives them office in the first place and protects us from their abuse in the second place? Some one named McCain needs to retire and be replaced by someone with the ability to serve the public not himself.

Rand Paul is a moron. This is just another in a long line of poorly thought out policy positions by the Paul family members. That he is in favor of a President using drones to protect Senator Rand Paul, but opposed to Obama using it elsewhere, only illustrates the double standard that these Congressional jerks like to impose.

In sequestration, Congressional office staff and budgets should have been the first thing cut, not given exemptions. Had Rand Paul had his phone lines cut, he wouldn't be able to suck up to the neo-Nazi racists that finance his campaigns. With no bribes coming in, Rand Paul would be hard pressed to cut everybody else's budgets and he'd settle up real quick. The people of Kentucky should be ashamed to have elected two disgusting POS Senators as Rand Paul and Mitch McConnell. May their state suffer because of it. That would be the first place I'd want to send the drones.

Maybe Rand Paul wouldnt have to throw a hissy fit if Bush in 2007 hadnt changed the law?

I am glad that we got this "all cleared up"...but, is there any law that says the police cant use drones to use lethal force on american citizens?

They already can...and do...and since they are the ones purchasing and using drones already, here, i'd say they are the ones you should be worried about.

GOOD GRIEF - it's clearly not that hard to distract the american public from what's really at issue.

Someone questions His Royal Majesty, and all hell breaks loose...who da thought! Rand Paul's constitutional issue is a legitimate one. Anyone not realizing this is thinking like a monarchist and not an American. My opinion of McCain is at an all time low.

They returned from Belshazzar's feast only to see the handwriting on the wall.

Just now:

Eric Holder responds to Rand Paul's filibuster with this letter:

Dear Senator Paul:

It has come to my attention that you have now asked an additional question: "Does the President have the authority to use a weaponized drone to kill an American not engaged in combat on American soil?" The answer to that question is no.

Sincerely,

Eric Holder

Glancing through the posts, there are some really ignorant people that just regurgitate liberal nonsense without even thinking about what they say. To call Rand Paul names is just childish. He stood up for what he believes... what liberal doesn't do that on a daily basis? Hypocracy knows no bounds.

The use of drones on any American in America is WRONG. It is wrong on many levels. If a democrat were to have filibustered the senate for the same thing, he'd be championed by liberals, especially if a republican were the president. Forget the politics for a moment... the use of a drone on any American while in this country is going against the Constitution and is an illegal activity... no matter who the President is or what party he represents. This cannot be allowed. The moment a precedence is set, it alters the future for all Americans. Why can't some people see this?

This has nothing to do with party... it has everything to do with the future of this country.

This is why I love the Pauls. They are not afraid to bash their own side and fight for what they believe in. They are against the Patriot Act, NDAA, the president being able to take away your citizenship, the president outlawing protests around him when secret service is around (yes Obama did that) and countless other things. They never just follow the republicans if they see someone taking away a right. You guys can hate on the Pauls all you want since you want big brother and the gubnet to help you, but they have constantly fought for freedom in our country. I dont always agree with them, but at least I know they actually care about and act on what they say. If the rest of the politicians in congress were like the Pauls (with different views and everything) we wouldnt look at them as corrupt was we do Barry and our congress.

JUST RELEASED;

Eric Holder has issued a letter, that the president DOES NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY, to target persons in the United States with drone attacks, it is beyond the authority of the Constitution .

lets hear a praise for sen. Paul, his fillibuster bought the issue to light and a reversal of a legal opinion by a two -bit political hack, that is our attorney general.

Ole Miss Sky Pirates isnt going to be happy McCain leveled her as a traitor.

There isn't a room big enough to contain the egos in the Senate.

The Paul's will always be a waste of our time and tax dollars. Always have been up to this point. People who elect idiots are themselves idiots. Rand is just one example.

“I find the question offensive,” Graham said Thursday on the Senate floor. “As much I disagree with President Obama and as much as I support past presidents, I do not believe that question deserves an answer.” Paul’s question, the South Carolina Republican said, “cheapens the debate.”

One great dinner and booze/wine floating around last night did one heck of a job!

I'm not necessarily opposed to drones, even on American soil against American citizens. However, their use should be as a last resort and only under extreme circumstances--say, if another Timothy McVeigh (Oklahoma City bombing) came along and there was a preponderance of evidence indicating that some act of domestic terrorism was being planned. Also, there should be at least two people, preferably from different political parties, who must agree to give the go-ahead.

using a drone when there is no immediate threat is opening it up to potential abuse, and no single person should have the authority to deploy one. All I know for sure is that we live in some flippin' scary times

as for the assertions that we can never use our military to kill our own citizens on our own soil, that ship already sailed when the National Guard killed 4 students at Kent State in 1970

rockymtnroustabout

That is a very interesting sentiment. Bashing both parties to point out a possible violation of our civil liberties is a waste of time? Huh

The effective range of an RPG-7 is about 1,100 meters. Way more than a police sidearm. We should be able to use anything available to protect our citizens from terrorists, whether the terrorist is an American citizen, read Timothy McVay, or not. I don't know why Ron Paul and his t-party acolytes are so stupid and paranoid. The thought of the UN coming to America to take away our televisions is so dumb it's beyond the earth being flat idea, which is believed by Ron Paul and most of the t-party morons!!

A question obviously needs to be asked in a public forum of Sen. John McCain of Arizona and and Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, and here is that question.

What office of our government is granted the power under our constitution to authorize the killing of a citizen without due process of law?

Just answer this question. Please point to the Article and Section of the Constitution that grants this power.

And if you are unable to do this, then would you two "gentlemen" please resign. You have "deemed" something to be in the Constitution that is not htere and your "deeming" is a clear threat to the Constitution itself and to our rule of law. The Constitution now needs to be protected from you two "gentlemen" in addition to the others that violate the Constitution every day. I am ashamed of both of you as you have dishonored the body of the Senate. Shame on you.

I suggest, if you want Republicans to stop obstructing everything is, to invite them to Congress, dismiss all the Democrats and Independents and use a Drone on them! They are terrorists! They have held this country hostage for 4 years now! THAT is Domestic Terrorism. Someone actually said that the minority is supposed to stop the tyranny of the majority? What the hell kind of nonsense is that? The majority rules! That is what this country was founded on! The people spoke. Obama won. Get over it already and do something productive. This filibustering and obstructing IS terrorism!

"to show their support for his demand that President Barack Obama explicitly say whether he thinks he has the authority to order the killing of a U.S. citizen on U.S. soil who was a noncombatant and posed no imminent threat of an attack."

Republicans are reducing themselves to making up crazy questions while trying to imply to their (stupid) base that the question has some merit when it doesn't. I'm thrilled that Senator Lindsey Graham put Rand Paul in his place:

“I find the question offensive,” Graham said Thursday on the Senate floor. “As much I disagree with President Obama ... [but] I do not believe that question deserves an answer.” Paul’s question, the South Carolina Republican said, “cheapens the debate.”"

Thank you Senator, although I'm sure you'll have hell to pay from the Tea Bagging wackos who want to be able to make anything, and then have some backing to go with their blatant lies.

Thankfully, Senator Graham denied them this lie, this time.

rockymtnroustabout

The Paul's will always be a waste of our time and tax dollars. Always have been up to this point. People who elect idiots are themselves idiots. Rand is just one example.

It takes an idiot to know an idiot.

Its about time someone to step up and show Rand Paul for being a Clown !!!

Did Marco Rubio share his H20 with Rand Paul, what the hell was in that bottle ???

13 hrs. of wasted tax payers money, what Stupidity !!!

Yeah, standing up for what you believe in is always stupid and a waste of time/money...

Someone actually said that the minority is supposed to stop the tyranny of the majority? What the hell kind of nonsense is that? The majority rules! That is what this country was founded on! The people spoke. Obama won. Get over it already and do something productive. This filibustering and obstructing IS terrorism!

Educate yourself about the political principles that this country was founded on before you make an even bigger fool of yourself. The founders were extremely wary of democracy and majority rule and they wanted as little to do with as possible. Rights are not up for majority decisions. If 51% of the population wanted slavery, would that be ok? According to you it would be since that is the will of the majority. I tend to think that the majority is often wrong and we need to be protected from the mistakes that a majority can make. The bill of rights is meant to protect us from the tyranny of the majority and our government's separation of powers also serves this function.

seaskip

Wouldn't the waste of tax payers money be the preceding 364 days, or maybe the 365 before that or....... You tell me.

Who really cares what McCain thinks?

American Girl-724855

Actually what they both said was that this topic should be handled in committee, out of the publics eye as if we could not understand or comprehend the topic at hand.

Jessica-1170252

Maybe Rand Paul wouldn't have to throw a hissy fit if Bush in 2007 hadn't changed the law?

Jessica, you are correct....and I thought that when I voted Obama, he would turn us in the right direction, and away from this....war mongering

but instead, we are advancing those very policies that drove us to want Obama in the first place, a seemingly non-violent person concerned about the quality of life in America, unlike Bush .....only now, we have this....

“President Obama's action today is a blight on his legacy because he will forever be known as the president who signed indefinite detention without charge or trial into law,” said Anthony D. Romero, ACLU executive director.

http://www.aclu.org/national-security/president-obama-signs-indefinite-detention-bill-law

and more....drones used to terrorize the entire world, even its own

which is a far cry from what this country wanted and needed. We were sold a beach in Wyoming

For those discrediting Sen. Paul's actions you have to admit, it was VERY effective. He did exactly what he set out to do. He has people talking about this issue as evidenced by this article and their own acknowledgement of his actions. He did an excellent job of bringing the issue of drones on U.S. soil and their application further into the national conversation while working within the system and minimally disrupting the flow (what little there is these days) of government. I feel Graham and McCain are wrong on this one. This was an effective way to bring an issue into the public and political discussion.

It seems that in both our government and on these comment boards the situation has devolved into everyone sitting around making stuff up to argue about. I wonder if all this cr@p they're putting in our food is affecting our brains so that more and more we just attack each other. I read these because I am interested in what people think about the issues, but more and more it is becoming not fun because it's mostly people trying to prove how wrong everyone else is.

So, just to put the idea of our president being able to determine that drones can be used without due process against american citizens here in the united states, imagine Ruby Ridge or Waco happening today. Just because we believe an authority granted a sitting president will be used with grave consideration doesn't mean that we should blindly grant that authority to all future presidents in the hopes that the responsibility will be respect--as with every other change we have made, the next president only takes more authority. The requirement of due process and the protection of life and liberty is a forward-reaching protection insisted on by men who witnessed abuses of power by those sitting in positions of authority. Do we really want to give that up for all of us, just to pre-emptively expedite justice against a handful of people, and meanwhile to allow one man (always fallible by nature of his humanity) to determine who deserves a trial by his peers and who simply deserves to die?

By the way, there were plenty of republicans against the sweeping power-grabs post-9-11. This is a dangerous result of those changes that was foreseen by those who insisted on diligence and careful consideration back then and were ignored by those who chose to act swiftly and without caution. We MUST take a step back.

I am a fiscal conservative.......and I am SICK of McCain and Graham. VOTE THEM OUT. We need new ideas and new blood and the same goes for the democrats.....vote the OLD GUARD OUT. I LOVE what Paul Rand did!

When Holder testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee Wednesday he repeatedly said the use of a drone to kill an American citizen on U.S. soil who wasn’t an imminent threat wouldn’t be an “appropriate” use of lethal force

Here's the problem I have and probably a lot of others do, in the word "imminent" I mean these professional politicians can watch someone take a @!$%# on the floor in the senate chambers and then debate on whether or not it's actually @!$%#. These guys leave everything in vague legalise speak and then just add it in later when know one is looking. I'm sorry but I don't trust professional politicians who have no moral or ethical basis to be running anything much less a country. Both of these parties are so @!$%#ing corrupt I don't know how anyone could or would vote for them. How much money is being filtered down to these clowns to keep our economy the way it is, oh look the dow is up, yet people are still losing jobs, benefits are still being cut, homes are still being lost, so tell me who's winning in this game, notice we didn't see one politician lose their house or car during this recession did ya??? That should tell ya something. VOTE them all out, it's pretty damn obvious we can't trust them with our military or our money. Start voting independent.

Johntho - Habeas corpus is the only right specifically mentioned in the Constitution that can be suspended by the president.

I find it curious that you rant against government, apparently don't trust it (at least not while Republicans are in charge), yet you have a "no guns" avatar. How foolish to distrust government and not want to have guns. When they come for you, will you plead with them to leave you alone? Free people are armed so they can fight back when the time comes.

The Administration brought this entire thing on by not leaving asserting they could use the power without limitation other than those currently in place for overseas actions.

Speak English next time. You must be one of those al Queda plants posing as an American as bad as that statement is.

Rand Paul just got spanked by his own people cause he did something stupid in the misuse of the Filly....which they said would not happen. Holder never said the president had the authority He said that in a wild scenario devoid of any other method to stop a terrorist attack yes they would probably use it. Had one of the Bushes or Reagan followers said the same thing you people would be trying to name an airport or street after them. First place why would we even be discussing this in the first place? So we can tell our enemies how we plan to operate? What idiot goes and stands for 12 hours just so our enemies can be assured we will not kill them as long as they are on our soil and have a DL that says they are a US citizen. Rand Paul ad everyone of those who backed him are idiots and Saint rubio is one of those.

A couple of Fart-Bag block heads who hinder accountability at times - McCain and Krispy Kreme should change their party to Democrat - now

Dear members of the GOP in the House and Senate:

"Blah, blah, blah...Jane Fonda."

Whaaaaat? Seriously??

Guys, it's 2013. Time to more forward from the '70s already.

Bush and Cheney, the war criminals did whatever the hell they wanted and ran amuck for eight years. We never saw such theatrics while they were in office.

For all of the posts above that try to argue that under certain circumstances drones killing Americans is acceptable, to you I say be very careful what you tread upon. We live in a nation of laws based on our Constitution. Hundreds of thousands of men and women have, over the many years, died and made untold sacrifice so that we have the privilege to live in such a Republic. And now, for the expediency of the moment, or because there is some sort of perceived crisis, you want to ignore the Constitution?

If you do this, then we are no longer a nation of rule by law. We have been there before. When Japan attacked Pearle Harbor, our government threw out the Constitution and rounded up American citizens of Japanese descent. That was a dark day in America when the rule of law turned into majority rule and then the rule of a mob. A dark day indeed. To protect our Constitution we violated the hell out of it. Crimes of the father became crimes of the child despite the Constitution stating there shall be no corruption of blood. Innocent people had their lives destroyed by a lawless government spun out of control by fear, and by forsaking the rule of law.

Rule of Law is the only thing that protects the people from the rule of the majority or even a rule of the few such as in an oligarchy. Any minority knows that. Anyone living in a dictatorship knows this. The Rule of Law limits the power of government for the protection of those governed by that goverenment.

When the president gives himself powers not granted by the Constitution, that president is no longer functioning under the powers of the office of the president and is instead operating on powers granted to himself by himself in violation of his oath of office and the Constitution he took an oath to follow. In other words, that president is a threat to the Constitution itself.

Rand Paul stood up for the rule of law. Rand Paul stood up for our Republic. Nothing more. Nothing less. He was then criticized by Senators McCain and Graham who are totally wrong on this issue. The issue is not whether or not drones killing Americans is authorized. The issue is much larger and much more important that that.

The real issue here is does the Constitution grant this power and if not, are we going to follow our Constitution and continue to be a free Republic, or are we going to violate the Constitution and cast the Republic aside. You simply cannot be partially rule by law and partially something else, because you are then simply under the rule of men deciding which laws to follow (which is an oligarchy). This is the issue at hand. Senators McCain and Graham have clearly, strangely, come down on the side of punting the rule of law.

Both of these "gentlemen" are no longer following their oath of office to protect and defend the Constitution, which is the only task they took an oath to do. This singular mission, in the form of an oath of office, by design of our founding fathers, is intended to bind those entering office on their honor to follow and protect the Constitution, which in turn limits the power of the government, which in turn protects us all. On this very serious issue, McCain and Graham have now failed.

The one mistake in judgement I find the founding fathers made, was they never considered it to even be possible that so many would enter office lacking sufficient honor to give meaning to their oath of office. Therefore, we have today, in Congress and in the white house, elected individuals sworn to follow the constitution that fail to do so, and standing behind them are secret service body guards sworn to protect the Constitution that are standing there with weapons loaded protecting the very people that are violating the Constitution. This is not stable. This is not right. This is not constitutional behavior.

Unless this behavior changes, our rule of Law is in real danger. Likewise, writing some hidden white house legal opinion and using that opinion as the basis to grant powers that do not exist under the Constitution, simply cannot be allowed. The only way to get around what the Constitution says or does not say today, is to amend the Constitution. Nothing else will do, especially in the Republic of the United States of America.

So for all the above posting their "reasons" why something like drones killing Americans should be allowed, I submit to you that your arguments are without merit, no matter what you say, what you think, or how emotionally attached you are to your opinions. The only thing that matters is the Article and Section of the Constitution that grants that power, and if that power is not to be found in the Constitution, then that power simply does not legally exist.

What Senator Rand Paul did was honorable. Graham and McCain? Not so much. They should be ashamed.

Daveginoly: both times habeas was suspended by the president, Lincoln during the civil war, Roosevelt with the Japanese-Americans at the beginning of ww2; the SUPREME cour later ruled, the president does not have the authority to suspend Habeas. Rebellion and invasion are the only two exceptions(in Lincolns case , there was no rebellion in the North, suspension denied, in Roosevelt's case there was no invasion, suspension denied.(art/ 9 clause 2 Constitution.

When they come for you, will you plead with them to leave you alone? Free people are armed so they can fight back when the time comes.

Talk about paranoid....lets see...Independence came around 1776 and today it is 2013. Show us one time we needed guns aginst the government and do not mention the civil war which was not what you speak of.

Obama and his posse want our soldiers to live by his "rules of engagement" but want it to be OK to do this to American's on US soil? Crazy just crazy.

joel-989818

Ol Doc, please google worst economic recovery in US history and You won't have to wait any longer. An according to You liberals, or Progressives, or whatever the Hell You call Yourselves, the current congress keeps

I just did. You RWNJs crack me up. You refer me directly to a Obama hatchet job written for Forbes Magazine by Louis Woodhill (a right-wing hack that hates the public education system), which is then spread all over the RWNJ side of the internet. Why didn't you just direct me to Charles Koch's web site.

Laughing so hard I almost choked on a snot bubble. Two idiots calling out the other idiot. Way Too Funny.

Glenn

The real issue here is does the Constitution grant this power and if not, are we going to follow our Constitution and continue to be a free Republic, or are we going to violate the Constitution and cast the Republic aside. You simply cannot be partially rule by law and partially something else, because you are then simply under the rule of men deciding which laws to follow (which is an oligarchy). This is the issue at hand. Senators McCain and Graham have clearly, strangely, come down on the side of punting the rule of law.

Tell me Glenn, is this an issue you recognized and spoke up about when the Patriot Act was being hoisted above the Constitution or is the a recent (post Bush era) epiphany?

Rand Paul's filibuster holds no water, Rand is a idiot !!!

I think Rand Paul has drones in his head !!!

We all know who the unjustified killer was and is!

GW Bush, yanked Saddam Hussein out of Iraq via weapons of mass destruction (untrue and fraud by the US Executive branch)..

We took a sovereign ruler by force, via war that had no basis, and then hung him... You don't need a drone if you're the GOP!!

THe GOP can sit up there and blab away all he wants because he's wasted my time for over 10 years by all American's votes...

They destroyed a sovereign country, set up The Carlyle Group (Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld) and Halliburton, the one you all know so well.... But you don't know the Carlyle Group and that's the second US business involved to rebuild IRAQ. Carylyle and Halliburton got EVERY CENT OF THE MONEY FROM THE USA.. It wasn't the biggest rebuild since WWII in Europe! It was the biggest ripoff of USA taxpayer money since the Robber Barons at the turn of the 20th Century. The Clayton Act, Anti-Trust, rich people ripping off everybody and desiring to eliminate any competition!

That's The Carlyle Group and Halliburton college class 101... Look it up and learn. Especially if you call yourself a REPUBLICAN!

They hung Hussein, a man duly elected and still sovereign in his country as LEADER!

Don't give me drones! Don't give me LAZY ASS REPUBLICANS THAT BLAB ALL DAY AFTER THEIR PARTY DESTROYED THE WORLD ECONOMY AND RAN IT INTO THE GROUND FOR THE WHOLE WORLD!

The Republicans have ABSOLUTELY NO FEELING, EMPATHY OR UNDERSTANDING for Americans in general TODAY! That's why they are the NO PARTY.. No work, no help, no nothing except whining laziness, stupidity, continued ignorance and LOATHESOME BEHAVIOR!!!!!!!!!

Hey Pat in Boston, you get the prize for asking (and answering) the question of the day. Anyone expressing real or faux outrage over the use of drones against Americans on American soil has had way too much ACLU Kool-Aid, is rabidly anti-Obama (and therefore hardwired NOT to apply logic or reason to the POTUS) or has cranial synapse issues. Americans on American soil engaged in threatening activities (terrorist or no) who violate state or federal law are subject to due process considerations. I am sure many of you are aware of post 9/11 arrests in America of terrorists engaged in plotting harm and destruction whose attacks were thwarted by the authorities. They were picked up, processed and tried or are awaiting trial. No drones were deployed. So for those of you who think that drones would become the deterrent du jour in the contiguous US by a reckless POTUS, hold on to your Tea Bag wigs and don’t get your bloomers, thongs, panties tied in knots.

Now, if you’re a known terrorist, American or no, pal-ling around with Al-Qaeda or another terrorist organization on non-American soil (Middle East or wherever) and have sworn harm to American citizens then you can’t claim to be exempt from a drone attack solely on the basis of your American citizenship. Bulls**t! Get real. The moment you swear allegiance to a terrorist organization and against America you should know there’s a drone missile out there with your name on it headed for your @ss at any moment. Sorry. Bad time to be a terrorist!

Argue all you want. President Obama said would support the laws of the US. Though we all know if he does not like them. He will not enforce them. One for instant is the laws against gun running. He let these guns so south to Mexico. Dealers turned the gun runners in. At least Bush did it with the Mexican Government approval. Holder a close friend of the President was in charge of gun running. McCain and Graham ran on reelection as conservatives and lied.

No one has said that using any weapons..drones or not... against Americans without due process is going to happen. BUT , and there is a but, anyone remember those airplanes filled with passengers and terrorists back on that fateful day of 9/11? Two of them took out the twin towers and one hit the Pentagon killing thousands of our citizens. The fourth one was still in the air, thought to be heading for the capitol building when it was said that the passengers forced the crash in a field. It was also said that there were plans to shoot the plane down,sacrificing the few to save the many when that happened. If ever there were a situation where terrorists..Americans or not... were in a similar position of being an immediate threat to blow up important buildings again...Are you going to wait until they have done it or blow them out of the sky before they get there? Easy to say "due process" without realizing that our world has gotten more complicated, not as black and white as before.

Rand Paul filibustered for nearly 13 hours because he represents the majority of Americans who are sane and rational enough to question what these drones are being used for on our own soil. He didn'thave some speech writer nor a teleprompter helping him either. On one hand we have all this hysteria- creating hooplah about gun control while the current administration just matter-of-factly starts slipping in 30,000+ drones. How are we affording this technology here? How do we know drones won't be used to invade our privacy? It is interesting how tight-lipped they are about them. Let the haters and deniers throw their bullsh!t on here all they want to. Itis refreshing someone in the repub camp stood up and starting questioning the activities of this administration and start demanding some accountability about such a massive effort being partially revealed to an already concerned public.

I suppose even a broken clock is right twice a day. Way to go Randy.

But I suppose the question I would like you to question for 13 hours is, what happens when you make war cheaper, both in terms of blood and treasure? What happens to a nation when fighting a war is completely abstract? When there is no need to put your life or your wallet on the line? What happens when the cost of going to war is lower and lower?

Sorry Randy, I take that back. Props for trying though.

ol-Doc 1.106

I have done what I could since the early 1970's when I took an oath as an officer in the united States Army to protect and defend the Constitution from all enemies. Parts of the Patriot Act are unconstitutional in my view and I said so and protested when Bush signed it into law. I again protested when Obama expanded some of those unconstitutional parts of the patriot act, as I protested Obama and his AG announcing that they would stop prosecuting certain laws, (Article 2 section 3), as I did when Obama and Nancy Pelosi offered a deal to Louisiana for lower taxes under Affordable Health Act in exchange for supporting that act, as I did when Hank Paulsen tried to have TARP funds walled off from all court and agency jurisdiction (his section 8 of his bill- never passed), as I did in many other cases too numerous to list here. If you are trying to imply that my loyalty to the Constitution is somehow biased against or for any party or individual, you will not be able to support that argument. I would like nothing more than to Fire Them ALL.

Not following the Constitution has given us a federal reserve that as neither federal nor a reserve. They simply buy debt in chunks from the Treasury and pay for it by issuing smaller pieces of debt in the form of federal reserve notes commonly referred to as currency. How great is that working out?

We have squandered trillions of dollars and tens of thousands of lives by not having Congress have to declare war in order to fight a war, so we have turned too much power over to the executive branch and gone to war too often. We therefore fail to fund the war with a war tax, and instead just add the costs ofo the war to our debt. How is that working out?

We don't even have a budget. And now, we want to "deem" it OK to kill people without due process because we can't follow the constitution. Why?

Most, if not all of the financial problems we face, are the result of setting aside the Constitution in some way or form. We are now broke, yet wanting to buy very expensive drones to be armed so they can kill people without due process. When you are broke, this is a bad investment. When you live in a Republic, this is unconstitutional.

We are having sequester to limit spending while we are buying 2700 armored vehicles designed to survive a mine field, at a cost of $250,00 - $300,000 each, so we can give those armoed vehicles to local police that never requested them in the first place. Why? Why are we spending money that we don't have, to buy what we don't need, at the same time we are cutting needed services with sequester to save money. why?

This is the level to which we have now sunk. Little would surprise me at this point. From both parties.

Clinton was impeached for perjury. We had a president (executive branch) commit a felony and was impeached for that felony only to have the Senate ignore the evidence and come up with a finding of Not guilty. The same evidence was then used by the state of Arkansas finding him guilty of perjury and yanked for life his license to practice law. Why did the Senate look the other way? It was their duty under the Constitution to weigh the evidence, not rule in a partisan manner. If partisan politics can ignore the evidence in the Senate when deciding guilt for a president that has been impeached, then there is no honor in Washington. And this Ol Doc is where we now are.

We commonly have unread bills going to the president for signature. Why? The Constitution does not say those bills have to have a certain number of votes. The constitution is much stronger than that. It clearly states that all bills going to the president for signature have to have the "Concurrence" of both houses of congress. Concurrence means a meeting of the minds. A meeting of the minds cannot take place with a bill that is not read and debated. Therefore, it is now common for Congress to illegally send to the president a bill for his signature, making illegal law when that bill is signed into law. This was the subject of Nancy Pelosi (one of the most ethically challenged individuals to ever sit in congress) when she stated "we have to pass it to see what is in it".. If you have to pass it to see what is in it, then you don't know what is in it and therefore there is no way to have Concurrence. This is what you get when you ignore the Constitution.

The root problem is ignorance, and ignorance is bliss, and unfortunately for America, bliss is in too great of supply. A republic requires an educated electorate, and we are moveing ever further from that requirement at our peril.

I think you have a history understanding problem

SmBizOwner = LMAO...yep i do...

Those brownshirts were all republicans running around beating up Jews. Interesting though, it would appear that the Leftwing has a habit of Jew hatin, money hatin, success hatin, gun hatin, God hatin, American hatin way of life...

So what Smbiz do you run/own? You sell fat burning pills over the phone or a distrubitor of Shamwow?

Its the leftwing loons that have a control issue...ban guns, drone citizens...Wear the brownshirt proudly...

Good Lord! You teabaggers hop on and off John McCain more than a Palin slut!!

It pains me to say this but I agree with McCain about the need for have a discusion on rules for the use of drones on American soil............. Although I'm not sure what to make of his Jane Fonda reference, maybe he still thinks it's 1968.

MEMO TO AL QAIDA TERRORISTS:

From the offices of Senate Republicans Rand Paul of Kentucky, Mike Lee of Utah, Ted Cruz and John Cornyn of Texas, Jerry Moran of Kansas, Saxby Chambliss of Georgia, Pat Toomey of Pennsylvania, Marco Rubio of Florida, Jeff Flake of Arizona, Ron Johnson of Wisconsin, Tim Scott of South Carolina, John Thune of South Dakota and John Barrasso of Wyoming

Dear Terrorists,

We of the GOP Senate would like to take this opportunity to let you know that we will stop the workings of the US Government to ensure that any members of your group that hold US citizenship will be exempt from drone attacks by our own military, CIA, and executive branch. We trust you more than we trust our own President to "do the right thing". And we're willing to shut down the business of the US Senate to make sure your people are protected. In fact, we'd like to take this opportunity to encourage any of your members that don't have US citizenship to seek it out, as this will protect you from drone attacks when you are planning terrorist attacks within the United States.

We'd also like to take this opportunity to invite you to contribute to our new political action committee, "REASON TO TREASON" which finances the campaigns of right wing nut job GOP politicians that would rather see the US attacked by terrorists than give Obama an ounce of credit for anything. Please join us, and make sure you recruit US citizens if you wish to be immune from drone attacks. Oh, and you can have the pocket knives back, too!

Sincerely,

Senate Republicans

Rand Paul of Kentucky

Mike Lee of Utah

Ted Cruz of Texas

John Cornyn of Texas

Jerry Moran of Kansas

Saxby Chambliss of Georgia

Pat Toomey of Pennsylvania

Marco Rubio of Florida

Jeff Flake of Arizona

Ron Johnson of Wisconsin

Tim Scott of South Carolina

John Thune of South Dakota

John Barrasso of Wyoming

john-737278

Ol_Doc

Actually, it says, yes I have been given the authority, I have a problem with it, but will never use it. Not that no one ever can or that he can't.

Like I said John, I won't get in a pissing contest with you:

H. R. 1540—266
SEC. 1022. MILITARY CUSTODY FOR FOREIGN AL-QAEDA TERRORISTS.
(b) APPLICABILITY TO UNITED STATES CITIZENS AND LAWFUL RESIDENT ALIENS
(1) UNITED STATES CITIZENS.—The requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to citizens of the United States.

And no law authorizes the President of the United States or Member of the United States Military to assassinate an American Citizen.

Lindsey Graham and John McCain have clearly demonstrated why the Republican party is unable to get its conservative message out. These so-called "leaders" do not stand behind the members of the party and present a united front. They are completely spineless and only interested in political longetivity. As far as they care, the interests of the country and her citizens be damned.

It is long past time for McCain and Graham to go - they both are a disgrace and sell-outs. Anymore, the only proper way to identify them in the political arena is with a capital "D" after their names. They no longer deserve the honor of the "R". Please get the hell out and take Boehner with you.

Mega Kudos to Rand Paul!!! Finally someone who is a real leader and not afraid to take a stand for what he passionately believes. We need Rand Paul and many more like him to claw our beloved country back from the clutches of the moronic socialism that is trying to take it over.

It's nice to see Rand Paul carrying on in the family business ... resident kook of the Senate.

the republicans are screw ups , the democrats are screwie in fact they seem interchangable and the country is screwed again by these 2 politackie parties who don't have a clue on how to fix the messes they both created together.....so so so sad for all of us , but its are own fault we keep electing the same old trashie buffoons election after election....I think its well past time to throw out the garbage can known as the congress and not recycle any of them...that also means no Clintons or Bushes again in the White House either..for the sake of the republic and its people...narcisistic dumbazzez all of them , I don't think any of them are even capable of building anything but a house of cards since that seems to be what they have done for the last 25 years

We get to see who a couple more insider eletes are. The constitution was written by very wise people. They knew that there needs to be checks and balances or abuses will occur. No I don't trust the president or a general or a CIA agent. But I do trust them having to justify their actions to a uninvolved third party (judge). Wow, public schools have educated the public soooo well (NOT).

Thank you Rand Paul. Piss off McCain; and the rest of the British royalty running our country.

Roy Wilson-336103, #1.8- EXCELLENT!!!

Ron-1861300

While I have concerns over the current drone policies and related items such as the Patriot Act, I don't think the filibuster is a productive way to discuss these issues.

Oh I forget the correct way to do this would be pass the bill and see what it says latter then??NOT, perhaps your mind might be changed by a drone attack taking you out then??

Ol_Doc

It is interesting that you quote the exact part of NDAA that actually does give the authority to the military. It is in the exact language that is used. When they write that it is is not "required" that the military arrest detain or kill suspected terrorists in no way does it preclude them from doing so if they choose. In other words, the military is not required but that does not mean they can't. In my opinion this one word opens the door to the US becoming a military police state. When in truth I believe an average citizen has a million times more likelihood to being robbed, raped or killed on the street than being a victim of a terrorist attack.

Sorry, but when our government does things I must question the motives. How much would the military industrial complex stand to gain if the streets of the US were militarized? How could they do this? By making the people afraid.

TO: john-737278 who wrote:

"American Girl-724855, Actually what they both said was that this topic should be handled in committee, out of the publics eye as if we could not understand or comprehend the topic at hand."

That's NOT what they said, the article is there in black and white, you only need to be able to "comprehend" its meaning.

They didn't say a damn thing about any committee, and Republicans who make crap up make me wanna puke.

What is wrong with Republicans that they can't look at the print, read it, and take it for what it says instead of trying to turn everything into some bogus lie?

No wonder Senator Graham didn't mince his words, he wanted to be sure to get through to the wackso.

American Girl-724855

First of all, I am not a Republican

Secondly, go ahead and puke. Oh that is right, that is what you write.

Finally, I was referring to what was stated when I WATCHED the filibuster. So, before you attack someone, know your facts. I am sure you can watch it as well.

TO: ROY WILSON-336103 who wrote:

"The problem was that Holder tried to use typical 'legalese' (it would be hard for me to imagine a scenario, but...) to answer the question instead of just giving a straight yes or no..."

He said "No" and he said it more than once, he also said "in writing" AND under oath.

How many times, and how many ways must a person say "No" before it gets through to Republicans?

If it's anything like Republicans' "rape policy" then I guess Republicans will never take "No" for an answer.

It's still "No".

TO: john-737278 who wrote:

"American Girl-724855 ... go ahead and puke... I was referring to what was stated when I WATCHED the filibuster..."

Ok, I puke on you.

I could care less what you make up, there is a direct quote in this article of EXACTLY what Senator Graham said, and it has nothing to do with any "committee".

You say you're not Republican, but you've got all the symptoms.

Did this article quote everything that was said? No

Can you find out everything that was said to understand that I am not wrong? Yes

Will you? NO

I do find it humorous that you are defending a Republican when it suits you though.

Rand Paul would run out of intelligent things to say after about 12 minutes, let alone 13 hours. There should be rules against temper tantrums that bring productivity to a stop like this crap.

So in essence, a senator who believes that the Imperial Federal Government, and the elected officials who took certain oaths to "preserve protect and defend", should remain within its Constitutionally mandated limits - is 'throwing a temper tantrum'??

When on US soil, these same elected officials would actually try to justify, in a non-combat situation, the evisceration of an American citizen without due process- based on mere suspicion?? And you call this "productivity"??

And just to make sure I understand how this works: Someone like that clinically insane, decaying corpse John McCain, or his dog washer Graham, speaks out against one of his own party and all of a sudden the words of a Republicant have weight and merit? Help me understand.

*The sooner you learn that there is no difference between either of the parties, and that the republicans serve only one purpose, which is to perpetuate the illusion that there is an opposing force in Washington, the sooner you can throw your angst and your energy into something more "productive" than the right of a king to murder anyone he wishes with total immunity.

I weep for you, and the years you have spent under the horrific influence of our system of public 'education'.