Rand Paul blathering for hours on Senate floor

Of course not, and neither should we have fired on the Japs after they attacked Pearl Harbor.

Because there is NO DIFFERENCE in an air strike on an isolated target and shooting down a hijacked plane that is really now a missile.

That bastion of conservative thought, Esquire, ran a very good article last year.

Yep, the head up their ass crew is in full throat. Must taste funny.

Drone strikes won't be used against US citizens unless there is absolutely no other choice, and there's an emergency situation where the lives of other citizens are in jeopardy. That's what has got the right wing blogosphere in an uproar.

Ah, the outrage du jour.

Drone strikes have already been used to kill at least two Americans, one of which was a minor who was standing in proximity to the American who was targeted.

Except for the part where I said why he was doing it in the original post.

That's the funny thing about this, it's just a giant straw man argument. Paul spent 12 (?) hours filibustering something that nobody ever intended to do.

This is much less about drones and much more about 2016. IMHO.

If you want to equate striking against allies of Al Qaeda actively engaged in aiding the terrorist organizations overseas with firing a missile at a Starbucks in Seattle, go ahead.

There appear to be quite a few people that also lack the intelligence to differentiate between those situations.

Of course.

The sheep don't understand that, but it's bloody obvious.

It's the same 'oooh, shiny' distraction that people always fall for.

In the meantime, there SHOULD be a serious discussion over the use of drones for surveillance, because that is a real possibility.

Killing terrorists became bad on January 20, 2009. Didn't you get the memo?

I love this debate. Very amusing.

Righties: "We want guns in case we need to protect ourselves."
Lefties: "No! You can't have them because we don't trust you. It's all hypothetical anyway."

Lefties: "We want government aerial drones in case we need to protect America."
Righties: "No! You can't have them because we don't trust them. It's all hypothetical anyway."

If this debate were happening during a Bush or other Republican presidency, lots of people (both here and IRL) would be on opposite sides from where they are now.

Not me.

The concept that the Federal government can use force to save US citizens from attack is all we are talking about here. The 'drone' aspect is scary, which is why the pundits and politicos are using it as political fodder.

If Bush had to shoot down an airliner during 911 it would have been a great tragedy, and I would have felt for everyone involved - even the people that had to fire the missile as they would have had to live with that the rest of their lives.

But it would have been legal, and I would have supported the President making that decision in most instances, regardless of party.

I've always supported drone warfare and also the idea that emergency circumstances sometimes require extreme responses.

Source?

Who said that?

This did happen, actually I believe three times. But in each case, the person was engaged as an enemy combatant against US forces in a war zone.

Yep. This was "See, Daddy? I'm a man now. I can do this all by myself, and it's time for you to hang up your spurs."

Funny how the "Bomb Iran/Iraq/Afghanistan/Whoever I'm Pissed at This Week back to the Stone Age" crowd has its panties in a bunch over targeted strikes. Are we to surmise that they like to see lots of dead civilians? Yanno, kill 'em over there so they won't move in next door to us over here?

I'd sure be interested in a list of such people....

I'll wait, but not too long, I have a pie to bake.

Black Dove and Midnight Funeral would like to see the entire Islamic world turned to a sheet of glass. Dayton loves him some war. Others are a bit more selective in their Enemies List, but if you tell me you've never seen the sentiment posted here, I'd say you're being disingenuous.

Just skim through any thread about Iran or NK.

I can honestly say it doesn't amaze me anymore that leftists will support murdering Americans if and only if the person in the White House is a Democrat.

And no I do not subscribe in this case to the theory that if it was a Republican President that those of us here on the right would support such a thing as well.

3 Takeaways from Rand Paul's #StandwithRand #Filibuster About Drone Strikes

http://reason.com/blog/2013/03/07/3-takeaways-from-rand-pauls-standwithran

Oh, did somebody say that? Who?

Actormike, Demi, Garamet, anyone who supports the Administration on this issue.

You guys can squeal all you want but when you have leftist groups applauding Rand you've got to know you're on the wrong side of the issue.

Kindly link to any post in which I've stated any level of support for the use of drones.

This thread is proof enough.

That you're tap-dancing away from your support of "Bomb 'em back to the Stone Age," yes.

Anything else, no.

Serious question for Zombie, et al.: What would you do in pursuit of terrorists? Carpet bombing, Special Forces, spies with poisoned umbrellas? Surely you've got a better solution.

I can not recall ever supporting killing Americans in America with "Bomb'em back to the Stone Age" .......

You do realize that that is what this is about?

It isn't about drone strikes outside of America. It's about the President and his cronies refusing to say they won't use drones in America against Americans and at minimum refusing to even show the rules for how they would decide who to kill and why.

I think that's important and I know for a fact if it was George Bush as POTUS you would be saying the same things I'm saying.

For one, the USA should stop fucking around in other country's affairs just because they want a secure energy supply.

Work toward becoming energy self-sufficient.

Close off trade and diplomatic ties with terrorist-supporting nations.

Don't allow immigration or issue visas to people from terrorist-supporting nations.

That would be a good start and not a single shot would have to be fired.

Also, your own government wouldn't have to treat the Bill of Rights like toilet paper.

Unfortunately, you're about forty years too late.

IIRC, the Esquire article I linked to talks about the death of a US citizen who was the son of a guy with ties to terrorists. The son apparently wasn't connected to them, though.