Is Rand Paul Still Your Hero?

Watch Rand Paul agree with Eric Holder less than 24 hours after his 13 hour filibuster.

On what constitutes an imminent threat:

“Anybody bringing a weapon to a place, assembling a weapon, using a weapon…”

What Eric Holder has enunciated, and what Rand Paul categorizes as a situation that would justify the use of lethal force on a citizen, are essentially the same thing. The only sphere of difference is that Rand Paul is invoking the imagery of a drone targeting someone sitting in a coffee shop here in America, and as you know that kind of scenario is pure fantasy. Policy outlined by Eric Holder doesn’t even explicitly state that a drone would be used.

Eric Holder has made it quite clear that, outside of extreme cases, we would rely on our existing law enforcement agencies to deal with any emerging threat. And there is nothing unprecedented about that. Law enforcement agencies already make life and death decisions on a daily basis and sometimes dispatch threats with lethal force.

Cult of personality is driving drone hysteria, not empirical reality.

This entry was posted in Ethics and tagged , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.
  • http://ifthethunderdontgetya.blogspot.com/ ifthethunderdontgetya™³²®©

    Yeah, yeah, we’ll be drone-striking our way to peace and humptiness any moment now.

    Don’t you clowns ever tire of licking cynical right-wing Democratic ass crack?
    ~

    • http://www.facebook.com/frederic.poag Frederic Poag

      Don’t you fire baggers ever tire of fallacious responses?

    • JMAshby

      I’m not even sure what you’re trying to say here.

      • Victor_the_Crab

        It seems to start with duuuuh!!!

    • Dan_in_DE

      It was in this very venue that the esteemed blue dog Senator from Nebraska was dubbed Ben “Fred Flintstone Head” Nelson a few years back, and mocked relentlessly. But seriously, have you ever heard a single word of praise for the attention whores of the Democrats’ blue dog faction? It’s doubtful.

      Also, too: It’s hilarious to see a supposed dead head (with a name from one of the crappiest tunes the Dead ever played) cracking wise about peace and happiness. Dude, you’re like a study in contradictory stupidity, Man.

      P.S. Let Phil sing!!!

    • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100000098740588 Jeremy Grunloh

      Before Truman ordered the military to drop two atomic bombs on Japan, FDR oversaw the immolation of tens of thousands of Japanese civilians, most of whom were women and children (firebomb + Japan + cities: look it up).

      But you LOVE Roosevelt. And, no, I don’t have to *ask* if you do… I already know (I also know that Thom “Nixon was more liberal than Obama” Hartmann lives in your car stereo).

      But, in your brain, the guy who did that is a better progressive than Obama because Bradley Manning spent some time alone and Anwar al-Aulaqi was denied due process.

      Same goes with Johnson. LBJ ordered the deaths of tens of thosands of Vietnamese. But, in your brain…

      Yeah.

      • ranger11

        And the Nixon stuff is pure crap. Cambodia? Kent State? Liberal domestic policy? He didn’t give a damn about it. Foreign policy was his main concern. Have any of these individuals ever listened to the Nixon tapes? Yeah, he was a real bleeding-heart liberal.

  • muselet

    I think Rand Paul threw his 12-hour-long, foot-stamping tantrum not because of policy, but because (a) he needs to buff up his anti-Obama credentials ahead of 2016; (b) he desperately wanted to get mentioned on the evening news; and (c) he took offense at the understandably weary tone of Eric Holder’s response (Holder sounded like the father of a none-too-bright child, trying to explain for the seventeenth time that Santa Claus won’t be leaving him a pet lion).

    –alopecia

    • http://drangedinaz.wordpress.com/ IrishGrrrl

      “….won’t be leaving him a pet lion blue bong shaped like Buddha”
      FTFY

  • mrbrink

    Rand Paul’s an overachieving imbecile. He’s only a hero if you think regulating light bulbs and raw milk is a fundamental injustice.

    What if, say, you are a third generation potato moonshiner with the eyes of an inbred by the name of Rand Paul, and you hijack an air-o-plane, or, say, the U.S. congress, filled with 200 American men, women and children and aim it toward the White House, or, say, healthcare legislation, voting rights, gay rights, women’s reproductive rights, Social Security and government oversight of environmental pollution and corporate profits…. should the President have the authority to order F-15’s to shoot you out of the sky without due process on American soil?

    Rand Paul says, “drones,” and certain ADHD liberals looking for another coming together for Reagan and Bush moment ask, “how high?”

    Is a 90% approval for George W. Bush too high? Never. Vote Rand Paul, liberals. He hates your fucking guts, except for your efforts to undermine yourselves. They’re going to need all the left hands they can get if the corporations that are overtaking the government as we speak– armed with their secret remote controlled aerial money bombs and Tea Party clone drones– are to continue to launch their discriminating attacks on American democracy with every lying breath and simpleton stroke of the pen.

    I consider Rand Paul’s grandstanding idiot-busting moment on the floor of the Senate as a major offensive in the corporate seizure of the U.S. government. Nothing more.

  • JimmyAbra

    Didn’t Republicans of this breed pretty much blame Clinton for not getting bin Laden “when he had the chance” when UBL was supposedly in some house but it was not pursued because it was deemed too risky for innocent collateral damage? Also, haven’t many of them defend Israel’s past bombing of buildings that killed many children with the defense that it was worth it to go after the terrorists who were mingling with their families because of what they did or have planned. Not defending the entire drone program but this argument on use of force has been going on for a while…if it is OK to have a situation to carry out a strike in NYC and take on local innocent casualties, then you can’t really defend a stance that you wouldn’t allow past “business as usual” to continue.

  • missliberties

    The answer to insane stupid free speech is more free speech. It worked for Sarah Palin and it is working for Rand Paul.

    He showed us the crazy yesterday out loud for thirteen hours. I applaud his effort to keep the conversation going.

    Paul praised the worst SC decision in US history, Lchner v New York, that even Robert Bork insisted was dispicable.

    Got that Rand Paul does not believe there should be any limits or laws. Using children to work 18 hours a day for pennies in a bakery = freedom.

    Lochner v. New York is widely viewed as one of the worst Supreme Court decisions in American history. It is taught in law schools, alongside decisions upholding segregationand permitting Japanese detention camps, in order to instruct budding lawyers on how judges should not behave. Even Robert Bork, the failed, right-wing Supreme Court nominee who claimed women “aren’t discriminated against anymore”, called Lochneran “abomination” that “lives in the law as the symbol, indeed the quintessence of judicial usurpation of power.”

    Please Mr. Paul do speak up more often.

  • ninjaf

    If he is such a hero, where is his bill to stop the use of drones? He is a member of Congress and, if I remember my Schoolhouse Rock correctly, he is able to introduce legislation to put an end to it. If he wanted to do something about it, he should have ended his 12-13 hour filibuster by, you know, DOING SOMETHING ABOUT IT. At this point, he is literally nothing but talk.

  • h4x354x0r

    The spectre of the Obama administration doing a drone strike on a Starbucks is, of course, nonsense; but you know any right-wing Republican administration would jump at the chance to use them on US soil against “suspected illegal abortion sites.”

    Don’t look at my post like that. You know I’m right.

  • http://www.sockpuppettheatre.com/ John Foley

    I think people are just freaked out about drones because they’re prejudiced against robots. Seriously, is there any qualitative difference between an automated attack robot or a bunch of guys with body armor and M-16s? Who cares where the bullets come from when they come?
    The reflexive reaction against drones is just some kind of weird, atavistic anti-technology thing. Or maybe it’s a burgeoning fear of SkyNet.

    • Victor_the_Crab

      I think people are just freaked out about drones because they’re prejudiced against robots.
      Whoops! Don’t let Bob read that. He’s such a robophobe. ;)

    • http://www.sockpuppettheatre.com/ John Foley

      And now after listening to the BGBC show I realize it sounds like I’m ripping them off. They even made the SkyNet joke.
      I promise I wrote this before listening to the show.

  • jjasonham

    I mentioned this exact thing on another website I often run across but never commented on (shksvll…plus a few vowels). Of course, I was lambasted for being “privileged”. They argued that the history of Japanese Internment is being suppressed and they’re doing everything they can to be able to kill Americans without due process. I pointed out that Holder basically said no military force anywhere there was law enforcement to handle those “terrorists” and that law enforcement included due process. I then asked those commenters to name a place that fit that bill. They accused me of being apologetic, privileged AND creating an unsafe space for others on the thread because I pointed out the sensationalism was FUD…THEN they banned me. Literally two comments left, and I was banned. I haven’t posted here in a while (but I’m always watching) but I’ve never been unreasonable and always do my best to use logic. Something about this drone talk is blurring the lines between the right and left fringe…