Skip to comments.Rand Paul was right to highlight US drone policy
Posted on 08/03/2013 5:43:47 PM PDT by Resettozero
Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Or so that's what our founders once declared.
With that responsibility, the Federal government has a duty to protect its citizens, providing certain unalienable rights.
So, it's no surprise then that Republicans and Democrats alike joined with Senator Rand Paul (R-Ky.) Wednesday supporting his filibuster to protest John Brennan's CIA nomination and bring attention to Obama's overreach of the Federal government with the U.S. drone program (of which Brennan was one of the chief architects).
Only Eric Holder could put it so eloquently, President Barack Obama has the legal authority to unleash deadly force, such as drone strikes, against Americans on U.S. soil without first putting them on trial...
But not every senator praised Paul's leadership. South Carolina's very own U.S. Senator Lindsey Graham, chided Paul for his outspoken leadership. Instead, he patronized Paul as ridiculous.
Graham was against Brennan before the filibuster, calling him arrogant, kind of a bit shifty. But a few hours after dinner with the president, Graham was suddenly in favor of him, determining that the nomination was instead a referendum on the drone program.
As South Carolinians, we are no stranger to controversy. Our politics are notorious for it, for better or worse. Oftentimes for worse.
(Excerpt) Read more at thehill.com ...
Several FReepers have indicated a wish to know more about Nancy Mace. I'm seeking to learn too. Perhaps this will help some, especially for potential voters in S.C.
The Constitution provides for liberty. It is up to the culture to provide morality.
Well then, we are screwed.
Yep, we sure are. Morality isn’t likely to come from political leadership, because of the corrupting nature of power. I think it all has to crash before it gets better. If that’s not true, I will be selling ammo dirt cheap at some point.
And right off the bat it gets it WRONG: “...the Federal government has a duty to protect its citizens, providing certain unalienable rights.”
The Fed gov’t does NOT *provide* Rights, it is instituted to protect Rights, as they are Inalienable.
Jeez, just how hard is it to get the debate started with the correct verbiage?! No wonder the Left has such an easy time whipping the opposition.
I’m trying to be concerned about drones, but I’m having trouble. What’s the difference, really, between some agency using helicopters, or a drone? Other than the drone being more cost effective? They do the same thing. For some applications like the border patrol it seems to me to be a pretty good thing. If the cops are using a helicopter for air support, or they are using a drone... What’s the difference that creeps people out? I’m finding it hard to be bothered by it. What’s the impact on liberty?
To bad he waffled all over the place on this one subject.
What is/was the impact on Liberty for any of thousands of baby-step government policies/capabilities over the last 150 years or so? With drones, deniability becomes easier and cost-effectiveness makes way for more of them. Stealthiness makes it less likely one will know he is being watched/targeted.
I agree. If you are not engaged in criminal activity there should be no problem.
Aircraft have been used to surveil criminal activity for ever. Many states had police aircraft used to detect speeders. More recently and perhaps still, helicopters were used to find pot patches in National Forests and elsewhere. The same is true for a variety of criminal locating tasks in urban areas.