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

#21y2jay15944_GFPosted 4/24/2013 8:58:53 AM
Actionrat posted...
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?


You do realize he said more than that though, right?

Like if someone was actively engaged in combat (which is why he qualified everything with a citizen NOT ENGAGED IN COMBAT), he's fine with it?
#22DJStrongPosted 4/24/2013 9:13:07 AM
y2jay15944_GF posted...
Actionrat posted...
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?


You do realize he said more than that though, right?

Like if someone was actively engaged in combat (which is why he qualified everything with a citizen NOT ENGAGED IN COMBAT), he's fine with it?


If there's a gentleman or a woman with a grenade launcher attacking our buildings or our Capitol, we use lethal force. You don't get due process if you're involved with actively attacking us, our soldiers or our government. You don't get due process if you're overseas in a battle shooting at our soldiers. But that's not what we're talking about. The Wall Street Journal reported and said that the bulk of the drone attacks are signature attacks. They don't even know the name of the person. A line or a caravan is going from a place where we think there are bad people to a place where we think they might commit harm and we kill the caravan, not the person. Is that the standard that we will now use in America? Will we use a standard for killing Americans to be that we thought - killing Americans to be that we thought you were bad, we thought you were coming from a meeting of bad people and you were in a line of traffic and so, therefore, you were fine for the killing? That is the standard we're using overseas. Is that the standard we're going to use here?

http://articles.latimes.com/2013/mar/07/news/la-pn-transcript-rand-paul-filibuster-20130307

88 pages, I challenge any one here to read half, Actionrat?
---
"On the contrary my friend, we're going to live!"
#23DJStrongPosted 4/24/2013 9:19:46 AM
Nobody questions whether a terrorist with a rocket launcher or a grenade launcher is attacking us, whether they can be repelled. They don't get their day in court. But if you are sitting in a cafeteria in Dearborn, Mich., if you happen to be an Arab-American who has a relative in the Middle East and you communicate with them by e-mail and somebody says, oh, your relative is someone we suspect of being associated with terrorism, is that enough to kill you? For goodness sakes, wouldn't we try to arrest and come to the truth by having a jury and a presentation of the facts on both sides of the issue?

Looking at the first paragraph is very convenient, like I said it makes for good political hay, but it is objectively not what is going on here.
---
"On the contrary my friend, we're going to live!"
#24AceVanquishPosted 4/24/2013 9:27:33 AM
muh gaffes
---
http://i.imgur.com/imGAY.png
http://lostfacts.net
#25Nirvna9Posted 4/24/2013 9:40:01 AM
y2jay15944_GF posted...
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.


Except the FBI has a long history of stepping beyond its bounds and secondly all one needs to do is label some one as a enemy combatant to spy on them. Even if he meant well it is short sighted and just plain ignorant.
---
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.
#26themastahPosted 4/24/2013 9:41:28 AM
No, he's still right. It's an imminent danger sort of thing. I mean, come on, SWAT had tanks out there, what's the difference?
---
A wild blog has appeared!
http://thedeepindigo.wordpress.com - A new blog about M:TG and other games: this one has updates!
#27Magus1947Posted 4/24/2013 9:41:56 AM
As I said at the time, Rand's filibuster was never about opposing drones, it was about opposing Obama. Pubs are perfectly happy with assassinating American citizens (Paul) or torturing them (Graham).
---
In the corrupted currents of this world, offence's gilded hand may shove by justice, and oft 'tis seen the wicked prize itself buys out the law
#28DJStrongPosted 4/24/2013 10:05:51 AM(edited)
Magus1947 posted...
As I said at the time, Rand's filibuster was never about opposing drones, it was about opposing Obama. Pubs are perfectly happy with assassinating American citizens (Paul) or torturing them (Graham).


Im sure actionrat would get around to it but since Im sure he is reading the filibuster now I will step in and say: you cannot speak for the senator.

The sun is still shining i suppose...

EDIT: in reagrds to your comments
We're allowing the President to be the accuser in secret and we're allowing him to be the judge and we're allowing him to be the jury. No man should have that power. We should fear that power. Not because we have to say oh, we fear the current President. It has nothing to do with who the President is. It has nothing to do with whether you're a Republican or Democrat. It has to do with whether or not you fear the consolidation of power, were you - whether you fear power being given to one person, whether they are a Republican or a Democrat. This is not necessarily a right-left issue.

Of course he maybe lying....and we can base that on
---
"On the contrary my friend, we're going to live!"
#29DJStrongPosted 4/24/2013 11:02:50 AM
Still reading I may pop in to post a few intresitng passages like this

We abdicate our responsibility by not really writing legislation. We write shells of legislation that are imprecise and don't retain the power, and because of that, the executive branch and the bureaucracy, which is essentially the same thing, do whatever they want. This happened also with the use of authorization of force in Afghanistan. This happened over 10 years ago now, 12 years ago. I thought we were going to war against the people who attacked us, and I'm all for that. I would have voted for the war. I would have preferred it to have been a declaration of war.

Made me think of the Sander's bill mentioned in another topic
---
"On the contrary my friend, we're going to live!"
#30KD003Posted 4/24/2013 12:28:14 PM
Looks like white knighting Al Awlaki has finally come full circle for folks.
---
Romney 2012:Let's Strap America on the roof of the car and drive!
Santorum 2012: GUB'MENT N-whadayamean this thing's on?