What, no Rand Paul thread?

[hippifried]

The fact that the technooogy for drones now exists means that it is virtually nevitable that "hostile' regimes will develop and use them (Don't Hezbollah already have some rather primitive versions of these). So expect iran, North Kirea et all to offer us their own drones soon - and i am sure Russia and China will have the technology very soon.

Huh? I had a working remote control airplane over 40 years ago. Mine was a relatively cheap toy, but the grownups had real good ones, with a national network of clubs for the enthusiasts. That's all a drone is. There's more satellites now, so the control can be farther away, but without all this modern communication, we wouldn't be able to publicly fret on this medium. Telstar went up in '62.

As for hostiles:
Ability to fly & wi-fi gets you a drone. If you can assemble a rocket, you can control it with a cell phone or your kid's X-box. Hezbollah has rockets. Therefore they have deadly drones, as the Israelis found out. Argentina gave the UK a small taste of the exocet back in '82. The french developed them in the '70s. The Iranians were effectively hitting Bagdad with Chinese built silkworm missiles during the Iran/Iraq war in the '80s. Etc...

There's nothing new here. Everybody has this "technology". I don't know why so many people are worried that what's already been happening for decades might happen someday.

[Ben]

Democrats Give Excuses For Not Joining Anti-Drone Filibuster:

http://www.buzzfeed.com/rubycramer/d...one-filibuster

[Stavros]

One important distinction in your post. I believe that Bin Laden declared war on the US military. If so, this would be in line with teachings in the Koran, that prohibits the targeting of non-combatants.

No -the English translations of the 1998 Declaration include this paragraph:

The ruling to kill the Americans and their allies -- civilians and military -- is an individual duty for every Muslim who can do it in any country in which it is possible to do it, in order to liberate the al-Aqsa Mosque and the holy mosque [Mecca] from their grip, and in order for their armies to move out of all the lands of Islam, defeated and unable to threaten any Muslim. This is in accordance with the words of Almighty God, "and fight the pagans all together as they fight you all together," and "fight them until there is no more tumult or oppression, and there prevail justice and faith in God."

The quote from the Quran: "and fight the pagans all together as they fight you all together," is from Sura 9:36 a chapter on Repentence; the second one, "fight them until there is no more tumult or oppression, and there prevail justice and faith in God." is from Sura 8:39, The Spoils of War.

However, none of the English translations of the 1998 Declaration are exact because some references to Quranic verses have been edited out -the English language versions I have seen appear to be the same- yet these missing verses would have meaning for those Muslims with a knowledge of the Quran as being part of the theologial justification for Jihad and was supposed to be part of the legitimacy that bin Laden and al-Qaeda sought amongst other Muslims. However one American scholar (Rosalynd Gwynne) argues that the manner in which Bin Laden and associates wrote the 1996 and 1998 Declarations opens up the charge that al-Qaeda has misinterpreted the Quran to support its own violent aims, quoting verses out of context. In this respect, al-Qaeda risked a degree of scepticism or even ridicule among the more scholarly Muslims for whom the precise origin of the verses is hugely important to understand what they mean. Curiously, Sura 9 is the only Sura in the Quran that does not begin with the invocation Bism'illah al Rahim al Rahman In the Name of God the Merciful, the Compassionate...

Bin Laden was challenged precisely on this issue of non-combatants, and argued that killing Americans regardless of who they were was justified in interpretations of the Quran, but cited two very obscure thinkers (a Pakistani called Sami Zai, and Abdullah al-Shehebi of Saudi Arabia -n18 in the link). He argued that there were no innocents on either side, a form of collective responsibility in which if the USA indiscriminately kills men women and children in the Islamic World, then they must expect the same indisicriminate violence in retaliation. This is clearly where the 'radical Jihadist' parts company with mainstream Islam and is a point of fracture in intra-Islamic conflicts notably those between Sunna and Shi'a.

Link one is to the 1998 text, link two is to the analysis (rather long I am afraid) by Rosalynd Gwynne at the University of Tennessee produced in 2001. The third link is to a chapter by Sohail Hashmi that has the references I noted above.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/updates/...atwa_1998.html

http://web.utk.edu/~warda/bin_ladin_and_quran.htm

http://iis-db.stanford.edu/evnts/526..._tradition.pdf

[fivekatz]

In fairness this issue will not played out in the capitol very much is quite a burning issue with large elements for progressives in America. One could say that as much as Rand Paul used it for his political purposes, many Democrats are staying away from it only because a Dem is in the White House.

On almost every issue I like to believe I am very progressive. I do find myself more likely to empathize with Obama's "compromises than I would if they came from a right of center President. And I can find a great deal to critique in how they have handled financial reform or lack of it and the lack of punishment for the "bank-sters". My empathy comes in regarding ObamaCare which was a huge compromise, slash, sellout to the Big Pharma and Big Insurance.

But whether it was because I was in NY on 9-11-01 on business and had employees that were directly impacted by the attacks on the WTC, I have fewer issues with Drone use than perhaps I ordinarily would.

Whatever the case, terrorism is a cancer on society that targets the innocent to create as the name suggests terror and in the process destroy the will of the citizens to support their government. It is my choice not or to support my government and I do not want a few people with an axe to grind with my government to try and influence my decision either way by killing me or my fellow citizens.

So as long as terrorists exist as distasteful as it is to target humans for murder, this is a policy I find myself supporting at the same time I wish the Patriot Act would expire and we could get the A-holes in US government to allow the detainees in Gitmo to moved to the US and given due process.

I can only pray that some day before I die that there really will be some period of continual peace on the whole planet because I am not a young guy and there has never been a day in my life that somewhere in the world there has not been war.

[hippifried]

Democrats Give Excuses For Not Joining Anti-Drone Filibuster:

http://www.buzzfeed.com/rubycramer/d...one-filibuster

Perhaps that headline should read: Fanatics make up excuses for nobody paying attention to them. The biggest lie that false ideologues on both the "left" & the "right" tell is that anyone who professes a certain bent should think in the stereotype of that bent, whether that stereotype has any basis in reality or not.

[Stavros]

But whether it was because I was in NY on 9-11-01 on business and had employees that were directly impacted by the attacks on the WTC, I have fewer issues with Drone use than perhaps I ordinarily would.

Whatever the case, terrorism is a cancer on society that targets the innocent to create as the name suggests terror and in the process destroy the will of the citizens to support their government. It is my choice not or to support my government and I do not want a few people with an axe to grind with my government to try and influence my decision either way by killing me or my fellow citizens.

So as long as terrorists exist as distasteful as it is to target humans for murder, this is a policy I find myself supporting at the same time I wish the Patriot Act would expire and we could get the A-holes in US government to allow the detainees in Gitmo to moved to the US and given due process.

I think it is a mistake to make policy based on reactions like yours -I was living in London at the time both the Official IRA and the Provisional IRA began a campaign of bombings (after 1972 it was mostly PIRA) across Northern Ireland and the UK, and the response of the British Government through actions such as Internment Without Trial, torture, and the aggressive policing of Catholic areas by the British Army actually worsened the security situation in Northern Ireland and the UK and led to more young men and women 'volunteering' for the Republican cause than might have been otherwise; 'Bloody Sunday' was another factor.

Indeed, 9/11 and the London Bombings of 2005 enabled the British Government to erode human rights and civil liberties even more than during 'the Troubles', with its collusion with the USA in 'extraordinary rendition' and torture, its imprisonment of 'suspects' held in prison without trial or even being told why they are in prison or what the evidence was against them -not for days or weeks, but years- and when these people do have access to the justice system, vide Abu Qatada, they can only win against a Government that cannot justify in law the causes of detention other than through supposition and hearsay. The humiliation of the British Government on imprisonment without trial has led Home Secretary Theresa May -currently being touted as the next 'Mrs Thatcher' to lead the Conservatives when they ditch Cameron- to argue it is time for the UK to opt out of European Human Rights legislation and its courts -in other words government should be allowed to do whatever it wants without the nuisance of the law getting in the way.

The latest Criminal Justice bill going through Parliament has approved a motion to create Courts that will operate in secret in order to 'protect intelligence sources', which is possibly true, but also works to cover up intelligence incompetence, and imprison people on the basis of no evidence at all, other than that they are Muslims -in the same way that the evidence of the threat in Northern Ireland all those years ago was the undeniable fact that the threat was called Patrick, or Sean, was Roman Catholic and lived on a particular street in Belfast or Londonderry. That the people should through public observance participate in the administration of justice should be basic to any modern democracy, we are to be denied this right not because we are too stupid to understand the case or too immature, but because on too many occasions governments get it wrong, arrest the wrong people, imprison people on the basis of flimsy evidence or faulty intelligence -but cannot bring themselves to admit they made a mistake. And how would you know what case was even being heard in a secret court?

Even though the turn to violence came out of the Civil Rights movement that began in Northern Ireland in the 1960s, had those rights (eg, the right to vote in some cases) not been denied in the first place, the 'moral' cause of the Republican movement would have been weaker -after all the Partition of Ireland of 1921 was not as universally hated across the country as many claim, even if it stored up the potential to cause trouble, as indeed it did.

But none of this was helped by the behaviour of the British Government in response to social conflict on the streets of Northern Ireland, and the draconian measures taken to deal with it became part of the problem for the succeeding 30 years. Yes, there is an ever present threat in the UK, from 'dissident Republicans', and from deluded Jihadists, and mostly our intelligence networks have done a reasonably good job of containing the threat, but the aggressive undermining of human rights and the democratic right to a fair and open trial are part of the problem not the solution.

[yodajazz]

No -the English translations of the 1998 Declaration include this paragraph:

The ruling to kill the Americans and their allies -- civilians and military -- is an individual duty for every Muslim who can do it in any country in which it is possible to do it, in order to liberate the al-Aqsa Mosque and the holy mosque [Mecca] from their grip, and in order for their armies to move out of all the lands of Islam, defeated and unable to threaten any Muslim. This is in accordance with the words of Almighty God, "and fight the pagans all together as they fight you all together," and "fight them until there is no more tumult or oppression, and there prevail justice and faith in God."

The quote from the Quran: "and fight the pagans all together as they fight you all together," is from Sura 9:36 a chapter on Repentence; the second one, "fight them until there is no more tumult or oppression, and there prevail justice and faith in God." is from Sura 8:39, The Spoils of War.

However, none of the English translations of the 1998 Declaration are exact because some references to Quranic verses have been edited out -the English language versions I have seen appear to be the same- yet these missing verses would have meaning for those Muslims with a knowledge of the Quran as being part of the theologial justification for Jihad and was supposed to be part of the legitimacy that bin Laden and al-Qaeda sought amongst other Muslims. However one American scholar (Rosalynd Gwynne) argues that the manner in which Bin Laden and associates wrote the 1996 and 1998 Declarations opens up the charge that al-Qaeda has misinterpreted the Quran to support its own violent aims, quoting verses out of context. In this respect, al-Qaeda risked a degree of scepticism or even ridicule among the more scholarly Muslims for whom the precise origin of the verses is hugely important to understand what they mean. Curiously, Sura 9 is the only Sura in the Quran that does not begin with the invocation Bism'illah al Rahim al Rahman In the Name of God the Merciful, the Compassionate...

Bin Laden was challenged precisely on this issue of non-combatants, and argued that killing Americans regardless of who they were was justified in interpretations of the Quran, but cited two very obscure thinkers (a Pakistani called Sami Zai, and Abdullah al-Shehebi of Saudi Arabia -n18 in the link). He argued that there were no innocents on either side, a form of collective responsibility in which if the USA indiscriminately kills men women and children in the Islamic World, then they must expect the same indisicriminate violence in retaliation. This is clearly where the 'radical Jihadist' parts company with mainstream Islam and is a point of fracture in intra-Islamic conflicts notably those between Sunna and Shi'a.

Link one is to the 1998 text, link two is to the analysis (rather long I am afraid) by Rosalynd Gwynne at the University of Tennessee produced in 2001. The third link is to a chapter by Sohail Hashmi that has the references I noted above.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/updates/...atwa_1998.html

http://web.utk.edu/~warda/bin_ladin_and_quran.htm

http://iis-db.stanford.edu/evnts/526..._tradition.pdf

Christian and Jews are not pagans, since they believe in the same God, whom Muslims call Allah. They are referred to in the Koran, as "the people of the Book". However, I understand that some Jews did betray the Prophet, in battle loyalties, but that still did not make them pagans. In those cases, I believe they would be called other names, but not such things as "non believers". The Koran is a 'high context' book. One needs to understand what was happening in real at that exact time. I think that 8th Sura, was written at a time, when it was rumored that a large army was coming after them. The two premises for war, are; 1. Those that would fight you because of your faith (that would be defense), and 2. those that would drive you from your homes, (that would be territory). I would agree that If Bin Laden truly believed that anyone could be attacked, his interpretations are obscure, since there are passages in the Koran, which directly forbid fighting non-combatants. I think the distinction that Bin Laden was not a 'good Muslim", so to speak, is very important. I even wonder whether or not some are trying to obscure this, for purposes of manipulating the public.

My time is limited today, so I will check out your references later. I do question whether Rand Paul is sincere, myself. I think he may have found an area which the Adminstration was vunerable. IN other words, he may just be doing it for pure political gain, not really about true moral reasons. The real issue should not just be about killing of Americans.

[Ben]

Three Democratic myths used to demean the Paul filibuster:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisf...s-progressives

[Ben]

Rand Paul -- and the Life at Conception Act:

[Ben]

Rand Paul introduces ‘fetal personhood’ bill to outlaw abortion:

Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) on Friday introduced so-called “fetal personhood” legislation that would completely outlaw abortion in the United States.
The Life at Conception Act would declare that human life began at conception, providing fertilized eggs with the same legal status as born persons.

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/03/1...tlaw-abortion/