This is a split board - You can return to the Split List for other boards.

Rand Paul Seems Okay With Killing Americans With Drones Now

#11y2jay15944_GFPosted 4/24/2013 8:14:16 AM
Someone please explain to me how he flipped flopped from 'I don't want to use drones on citizens who are not engaged in combat' to 'I think it would be alright to use them on this guy.....as he was engaged in combat'.

Trying to figure out how he flipped flopped from his first position to his...........first position.
#12overlordofstuffPosted 4/24/2013 8:25:56 AM
How do you guys not see the contradiction?

I will speak as long as it takes, until the alarm is sounded from coast to coast that our Constitution is important, that your rights to trial by jury are precious, that no American should be killed by a drone on American soil without first being charged with a crime, without first being found to be guilty by a court. - Rand Paul

The Boston bombers were not found guilty by a court. Paul never said anything about exceptions for active combatants. So when he now says that bad people who haven't been charged with a crime can be killed by drones, it is a deviation from his previous position.
#13Nirvna9Posted 4/24/2013 8:26:31 AM
y2jay15944_GF posted...
Someone please explain to me how he flipped flopped from 'I don't want to use drones on citizens who are not engaged in combat' to 'I think it would be alright to use them on this guy.....as he was engaged in combat'.

Trying to figure out how he flipped flopped from his first position to his...........first position.


Because it is out of the same realm as gun rights being infringed upon, or taking away habeus corpus to citizens, or any other number of rights violations. We have rights for a reason, and simply making excuses every time it becomes inconvenient will lead to us having none at all. It may seem like a small act but sometimes there are lines in the sand you just don't cross. Once you do things have a habit of escalating out of control.
---
We rode on the winds of the rising storm, We ran to the sounds of the thunder. We danced amongst the lightning bolts, and tore the world asunder.
#14y2jay15944_GFPosted 4/24/2013 8:36:10 AM
Nirvna9 posted...
y2jay15944_GF posted...
Someone please explain to me how he flipped flopped from 'I don't want to use drones on citizens who are not engaged in combat' to 'I think it would be alright to use them on this guy.....as he was engaged in combat'.

Trying to figure out how he flipped flopped from his first position to his...........first position.


Because it is out of the same realm as gun rights being infringed upon, or taking away habeus corpus to citizens, or any other number of rights violations. We have rights for a reason, and simply making excuses every time it becomes inconvenient will lead to us having none at all. It may seem like a small act but sometimes there are lines in the sand you just don't cross. Once you do things have a habit of escalating out of control.


I understand you. But an active criminal who apparently escaped, just had a stand off with the police, and attacked a city is no longer subject to normal police measures as we all know. If you watched a lot of the filibuster, his main thing was that he did not want non-combatants targeted. He was clearly a combatant at this point.
#15DJStrongPosted 4/24/2013 8:38:18 AM
While we wont really know what the man feels truly, as I suspect this is some political maneuvering, looking at what he said it seems like the issue is as such:

Engaging a suspect who is engaged in an active crime that has public safety consequences ie gun-brandishing liquor store robber or Boston Bombers, and the method used to subdue said subjects. Empirically we do find very little difference between either being shot by a cop or a drone.

This is weighed against an inactive crime, such as being guilty of supporting terror organizations, say making a deposit (using the cafe scenario) at a Starbucks via your laptop and then being taken out by drones. Of course we could also say the hypothetical subject is a known killer, but a cop wouldn't walk up and execute him unless there was a threat, like the suspect pulled a gun, took a hostage.

As this is issue is immensely layered and complicated there is no real easy answer, nevermind when real world events intervene. If Paul's first filibuster was about not using drones in order to take out subjects whom otherwise should be captured and given due process is then weighed against the actions of an active crime in progress, as he described in the TC's post than there is very little disconnect apart form the strength and qualifier of his rhetoric. Again cops have to take people out all the time, I do not see anything here that suggests a drone should have been used in Boston or in any way that would not be consistent with the use of force officers currently use.

The problem for Rand was his sweeping, grandiose nature in which he gave the filibuster, he did not put on reasonable qualifiers and situations, that seem not to conflict with his message but do lead to the political hay that is being made now. If he is in need of constantly, and laboriously, explain a position for every unique circumstance, his opponents will exploit it to no end. Objectively his stance is reasonable and consistent, politically though is an other matter, another reality, entirely.
---
"On the contrary my friend, we're going to live!"
#16Caer_DeathPosted 4/24/2013 8:41:30 AM
Wait, when have non-combatant Americans been targetted by American drones? Did I miss something? Weren't that high profile guy and his son declared enemy combatants?
---
The circle of life was founded by the god of America. Love it or leave it!
#17ActionratPosted 4/24/2013 8:44:18 AM
Well, now we can see what Sen. Dip**** is really all about: libertarian fantasies. He went on a 12 hour filibuster about this sort of fantastic, darkly romantic notion that the evul democrat dictatoresque president was gonig to kill innocent, liberty-loving (white) Americans while they were sitting in cafes. Paul wants to act the part of "speaking truth to power" and being a "defender of liberty"- romantic fantasies, and as this article illustrates, he's not so different from the Grahams and McCains when it comes to terror, crime, etc. He sure wants big government when it helps him sleep at night.
---
THRASH // THRASH // THRASH
#18CobraShuttlePosted 4/24/2013 8:49:24 AM
Literally nothing inconsistent or hypocritical. Literally a non-story, thus a troll topic. Move along folks.
---
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
#19DJStrongPosted 4/24/2013 8:49:54 AM
Actionrat posted...
Well, now we can see what Sen. Dip**** is really all about: libertarian fantasies. He went on a 12 hour filibuster about this sort of fantastic, darkly romantic notion that the evul democrat dictatoresque president was gonig to kill innocent, liberty-loving (white) Americans while they were sitting in cafes. Paul wants to act the part of "speaking truth to power" and being a "defender of liberty"- romantic fantasies, and as this article illustrates, he's not so different from the Grahams and McCains when it comes to terror, crime, etc. He sure wants big government when it helps him sleep at night.


This is simply not the case, as I said in my first post political hay is going to be made, put at issue is labeling an American Citizen, on us soil an enemy combatant for the express purpose of killing said person without due process. Suspects who are engaged in active crimes are taken out by law enforcement, that happens, what is to be avoided is the equivalent of a law enforcement official executing someone who should otherwise be detained. Give the nature of this issue I will not be surprised to see more posts like the one above, we will see i suppose....
---
"On the contrary my friend, we're going to live!"
#20ActionratPosted 4/24/2013 8:55:00 AM
No no no, DJ, you don't get to speak for Sen. Paul. Here's what he said:

I will speak as long as it takes, until the alarm is sounded from coast to coast that our Constitution is important, that your rights to trial by jury are precious, that no American should be killed by a drone on American soil without first being charged with a crime, without first being found to be guilty by a court.

Tell me, how do you charge, and subsequently find guilty in a court of law, someone like the Boston Bombers?
---
THRASH // THRASH // THRASH