http://www.c-span.org/Live-Video/C-SPAN2/

YES! I'm not the only one who knows what's going on! For those who don't know, Rand Paul is blocking any proceeding votes for Obama's CIA chair, John Brennan, over drone policies. Just a few weeks ago, the Department of Justice came out with a report on what classifies Americans as potential drone targets. While I don't agree with Rand on everything, I am happy to stand behind him on this issue.

 

I'm re-opening this as I don't see why this needs to be locked. Surely more controversial things have been posted on here without issue and politics have been discussed before (Sam even started one for the last election).

Edited March 7, 201313 yr by c13

I wonder how long he will go. He said he will speak until he can't speak anymore. 

 

Regardless of length however, this is a great defense of the Constitution and liberty. 

Ok.   It's your house, your rules.

 

BTW: Don't get me wrong either.  I like Rand Paul.  His dad is OK too I guess...a bit loony with his foreign policy for my taste though. 

 

Good day,

 

DrDetroit

 

 

Edited March 7, 201313 yr by drdetroit

its good to see someone take a stand against the nutcases in the white house who think using drones in america is ok

is the movie eagle eye popping up in anyone else mind? sounds a little similar to be coincidental....

Why here on a GTAIV, LCPDFR game site?  If people want to see/read that go to cnn.com, foxnews.com, what-have-you.  Some (most) of us come here for gaming, not politics.

 

Good day,

 

DrDetroit

Well, I posted this in the "Random" section for a reason. 

Ok.   It's your house, your rules.

 

BTW: Don't get me wrong either.  I like Rand Paul.  His dad is OK too I guess...a bit loony with his foreign policy for my taste though. 

 

Good day,

 

DrDetroit

I'd love to see Rand run in 2016. 

its good to see someone take a stand against the nutcases in the white house who think using drones in america is ok

You'd think a simple "No, it is unconstitutional" or something similar, something concrete, would have come from the White House and settled this. But apparently not. 

I wouldn't call this a "great defense of liberty". He's taking a stand, but I'd say that a "great defense" has to be at least mildly successful. A one-senator filibuster isn't going to be even mildly successful.

Edited March 8, 201313 yr by cp702

Drones? There's both good and bad that can come from this. It could save cops, it could reduce time to solve cases, but it will also cause a lot of controversies. If people think that they'll use it against innocent people, it will lead to a lot of conspiracies.

I'm fine with drones for surveillance. Remember that drones are, in principle, basically R/C planes. Just, you know, the big expensive kind that (because the government's buying it) costs more than what it took to liberate France. A drone used for surveillance is a police helicopter but cheaper (because helicopter pilots are expensive). Now, I don't support arming them, but police shouldn't be firing weapons from helicopters anyway (Coast Guard/maritime enforcement notwithstanding)

Any time a government is given more power, it leads to more abuse of that power. One of the most worrying things about this is that Obama has an unacknowledged kill list that current and former aides have mentioned. Considering that the next state over from me classified me as a potential "terrorist militia member" because I am a Ron Paul supporter, I would have more to lose from something like this than most on this site.

Drones? There's both good and bad that can come from this. It could save cops, it could reduce time to solve cases, but it will also cause a lot of controversies. If people think that they'll use it against innocent people, it will lead to a lot of conspiracies.

 

One of the things Rand pointed out was that Anwar al-Awlaki's (the first US citizen killed abroad by drone strike) son was killed in the drone strike. When asked for comment, the White House official stated something along the lines of "he should've had a better parent." Also, there have been hundreds of innocents killed overseas simply because they were in the same area as a target, I'm not willing to take that chance with American citizens.

I don't know how true this is, but some people say that drones can be the size of a bug, and can squeeze into cracks and such, being able to get through a variety of areas. I think it was from that T.V. show Conspiracy Theory, but I don't know how true it is, especially since it's from T.V. But if this is true, it shows you how far we have come in terms of technology. In 10 years from now, who knows where we'll be. They say that we're advancing faster and faster, because the technology itself helps us develop technology.

Remember that the military and CIA are legally prohibited from enforcing laws in the US (Coast Guard notwithstanding). I'm not under the impression that the police use missiles or any sort of automated weaponry (*automated*, not *automatic*).

The police chief of the NYPD said they had the means to take down a plane in the event of another 9/11, which would mean a missile system, presumably a stinger.

Where would they shoot it down? Unless there's open land, but even then, it's risky. The only possible place I can see is an ocean.

Edited March 7, 201313 yr by Original Light

The NYPD clarified that he's talking about .50 cal sniper rifles:

http://defensetech.org/2011/09/26/the-nypd-has-air-to-air-assets/

I was looking at it further, and NYPD higher ups said they could mount it on a helicopter. Presumably, it would fly out and intercept before a plane could get to nyc.

But it's still a rifle. A very high-powered rifle, but still a rifle. Not a missile.

Yeah, I couldn't see your post because I'm on a mobile.

Back on topic, I think Drudge had the best title for this Fillibuster story: "Randpage"

That is an awesome title.