Rand Paul Fires Back at Fascist McCain and Graham

[OriginalShroom]

I find it hilarious that the ACLU, John Cusack, Jon Stewart, Code Pink stand with Rand and Progressives stand with warhawk fascist 100 years war John McCain.


.

If Rand asked about targeting enemy combatants who are American on US soil or questioned the use of the technology THEN it would be a serious question.

Rand asked about killing Americans who weren't involved in attacking the US. In other words, just any American walking down the street. THAT MAKES THE QUESTION RETARDED. Rand even said the purpose was to humiliate the president, not to prove a point, or make the US better or........

Just humiliate the president. If Rand was a single IQ point higher, he might be smart enough to understand that he is the one who should be feeling humiliation.

The point is that Obama has claimed that he has the authority to determine that someone is a danger to the United States and issue secret Kill on sight orders on that person any where in the world.

That includes the United States and that makes the question serious. As well as who, if they are on American soil, is Obama giving the order to? The Military? That would violate Posse Commitatus. The CIA? That would violate other laws. The FBI? The U.S. Marshalls? Do they even have drones?

 

[Erand7899]

"They think the whole world is a battlefield, including America, and that the laws of war should apply,” Paul said in an interview on Fox News about McCain and Graham, who had described Paul’s comments about drones as “ridiculous.”

“The laws of war don't involve due process, so when they ask you for an attorney you tell them to shut up. That's not my understanding of the way America works,” Paul told Fox. “I don't think the laws of war apply to America, I think the Bill of Rights do and I think it's a disservice to our soldiers that our senators up there arguing that the Bill of Rights aren't important."

Paul said whether drones can be used against U.S. citizens on U.S. soil is a “very serious question” and was at the root of Wednesday’s filibuster, which delayed a final confirmation vote on John Brennan, President Obama’s nominee to lead the CIA."
.

Due process has nothing to do with apprehending a suspect who is recognized as a threat or an imminent threat.

For instance, if Senator Rand is waving a hand gun in the Senate chamber and perceived to be a threat, no one is worried about due process. He will be killed if he does not put it down.

Anyone waving a handgun in public is a threat, but the police do not shoot the person, unless they believe he is about to shoot them or someone else.

The problem in this whole discussion, and what Rand Paul was trying to get across, is the administration's legal definition of imminent threat. If someone is in the process of making war on the United States, then they have the legal right to take that someone out with any means possible. If someone is getting ready to make war on the United States, then the definition of imminent threat is very important in the legal authority to take him out. We normally associate imminent threat as a sudden and urgent need for preemptive action.

 

[JakeStarkey]

"They think the whole world is a battlefield, including America, and that the laws of war should apply,” Paul said in an interview on Fox News about McCain and Graham, who had described Paul’s comments about drones as “ridiculous.”

“The laws of war don't involve due process, so when they ask you for an attorney you tell them to shut up. That's not my understanding of the way America works,” Paul told Fox. “I don't think the laws of war apply to America, I think the Bill of Rights do and I think it's a disservice to our soldiers that our senators up there arguing that the Bill of Rights aren't important."

Paul said whether drones can be used against U.S. citizens on U.S. soil is a “very serious question” and was at the root of Wednesday’s filibuster, which delayed a final confirmation vote on John Brennan, President Obama’s nominee to lead the CIA."
.

Due process has nothing to do with apprehending a suspect who is recognized as a threat or an imminent threat.

For instance, if Senator Rand is waving a hand gun in the Senate chamber and perceived to be a threat, no one is worried about due process. He will be killed if he does not put it down.

Anyone waving a handgun in public is a threat, but the police do not shoot the person, unless they believe he is about to shoot them or someone else.

The problem in this whole discussion, and what Rand Paul was trying to get across, is the administration's legal definition of imminent threat. If someone is in the process of making war on the United States, then they have the legal right to take that someone out with any means possible. If someone is getting ready to make war on the United States, then the definition of imminent threat is very important in the legal authority to take him out. We normally associate imminent threat as a sudden and urgent need for preemptive action.

"but the police do not shoot the person, unless they believe he is about to shoot them or someone else." That is what we all have been telling you: no due process involved.

Your second paragraph supports the administration's point of view.

 

[JakeStarkey]

I find it hilarious that the ACLU, John Cusack, Jon Stewart, Code Pink stand with Rand and Progressives stand with warhawk fascist 100 years war John McCain.


.

If Rand asked about targeting enemy combatants who are American on US soil or questioned the use of the technology THEN it would be a serious question.

Rand asked about killing Americans who weren't involved in attacking the US. In other words, just any American walking down the street. THAT MAKES THE QUESTION RETARDED. Rand even said the purpose was to humiliate the president, not to prove a point, or make the US better or........

Just humiliate the president. If Rand was a single IQ point higher, he might be smart enough to understand that he is the one who should be feeling humiliation.

The point is that Obama has claimed that he has the authority to determine that someone is a danger to the United States and issue secret Kill on sight orders on that person any where in the world.

That includes the United States and that makes the question serious. As well as who, if they are on American soil, is Obama giving the order to? The Military? That would violate Posse Commitatus. The CIA? That would violate other laws. The FBI? The U.S. Marshalls? Do they even have drones?

You are making no significant point. The President has constitutional power to defend the country as necessary. There is nothing you can do about that. My best advice is don't act like drone food.

 

[OriginalShroom]

As far as McCain and Graham go..

I think they are pissed that they didn't think of it and are angry that Rand was the center of the 24 hour news cycle for at least 13 hours and they couldn't horn in on it.

 

[The2ndAmendment]

You are making no significant point. The President has constitutional power to defend the country as necessary. There is nothing you can do about that. My best advice is don't act like drone food.

Just like Ilar, when you run out of shit to argue about, you put words in our mouths.

-------------------------------

If an American citizen is engaged in an act of war right here in the lower 48, the deeply held belief of Rand Paul is that he needs to get arrested and prosecuted.

Rand Paul does not think, nor do most of his filibuster supporters, that the Federal government is denied the authority to kill an American citizen on US soil, if that person is an imminent threat using or threatening to use lethal force.

Do not put words in his mouth or ours.

However, if that US citizen is simply going about his civilian life (especially on US soil), the United States government should arrest him instead and try him under Article 3, Section 3 of the United States Constitution. If the evidence against him is overwhelming, he will not walk free, and you might even learn/gather more intelligence out of him.

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

The Founding Fathers provided that part of the Constitution in order to allow people the right to defend themselves against arbitrary accusations.

REPEAT: No one denies the federal government to use lethal force when the suspect is also using lethal force.

No one denies the federal government, under Article IV, Section 4, the ability to protect the United States from IMMINENT invasion/attack.

Section. 4. The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened), against domestic Violence.

 

[JakeStarkey]

I wrote, "You are making no significant point. The President has constitutional power to defend the country as necessary. There is nothing you can do about that. My best advice is don't act like drone food. And then TheSecondAmendment answers stupidly, "Just like Ilar, when you run out of shit to argue about, you put words in our mouths."

That's just it. Unlike IlarMeilyr, who simply babbles on, I don't have to put words in anyone's mouth, including yours.

Your own words hang you.

 

[Intense]

I wrote, "You are making no significant point. The President has constitutional power to defend the country as necessary. There is nothing you can do about that. My best advice is don't act like drone food. And then TheSecondAmendment answers stupidly, "Just like Ilar, when you run out of shit to argue about, you put words in our mouths."

That's just it. Unlike IlarMeilyr, who simply babbles on, I don't have to put words in anyone's mouth, including yours.

Your own words hang you.

Jake, seek help. I know you live for Statist Progressive Totalitarian Dictatorship, that is obvious. Still the President does not have unlimited power, nor is he exempt from oversight, at least not yet, publicly. You make the mistake of looking at unquestioned power as opportunity, without considering the negative effects in the wrong hands. That is Not what we are about Jake. Were you in a position of power, that mindset would be a threat to liberty.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Rand Paul Fires Back at Fascist McCain and Graham

So all of a sudden McCain and Graham are ‘fascist’ because they acknowledge the truth and are in conflict with the partisan right.

Telling.

 

[JakeStarkey]

I wrote, "You are making no significant point. The President has constitutional power to defend the country as necessary. There is nothing you can do about that. My best advice is don't act like drone food. And then TheSecondAmendment answers stupidly, "Just like Ilar, when you run out of shit to argue about, you put words in our mouths."

That's just it. Unlike IlarMeilyr, who simply babbles on, I don't have to put words in anyone's mouth, including yours.

Your own words hang you.

Jake, seek help. I know you live for Statist Progressive Totalitarian Dictatorship, that is obvious. Still the President does not have unlimited power, nor is he exempt from oversight, at least not yet, publicly. You make the mistake of looking at unquestioned power as opportunity, without considering the negative effects in the wrong hands. That is Not what we are about Jake. Were you in a position of power, that mindset would be a threat to liberty.

Horse crap, kiddo. You can't (One) give good definitions in your own words and (Two)
apply said definitions to the American social, economic, and political scene.

You are correct on the basics that the President is not above the law.

How you assume about "power" and "negative effects" concerning me is silly. You have no examples.

Intense, this is what happens when you embrace a value-less philosophy that overwhelms your personality.

You are lost.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Rand Paul Fires Back at Fascist McCain and Graham

So all of a sudden McCain and Graham are ‘fascist’ because they acknowledge the truth and are in conflict with the partisan right.

Telling.

The reactionaries and libertarians, many of them, are wack and are loose with words.

 

[OriginalShroom]

And nothing the administration has done, The2ndAmendment, has justified Rand's or your nonsense.

Two words, kiddo: step off.

Try the death of a 16 year old American Citizen who was not attacking the U.S. at the time of his death by Drone overseas.

If Obama could order that, why wouldn't he order the same on American soil? After all, he believes he has the "authority" to issue secret "Kill on sight" orders without any review by anyone else.

 

[JakeStarkey]

And nothing the administration has done, The2ndAmendment, has justified Rand's or your nonsense.

Two words, kiddo: step off.

Try the death of a 16 year old American Citizen who was not attacking the U.S. at the time of his death by Drone overseas.

If Obama could order that, why wouldn't he order the same on American soil? After all, he believes he has the "authority" to issue secret "Kill on sight" orders without any review by anyone else.

A wanted individual who refuses to surrender and hides among others is responsible for the injury to others.

You wish to create a "shield" defense, but such won't hold up in court.

Remember that drones don't kill people, but that people kill people.

 

[OriginalShroom]

If Rand asked about targeting enemy combatants who are American on US soil or questioned the use of the technology THEN it would be a serious question.

Rand asked about killing Americans who weren't involved in attacking the US. In other words, just any American walking down the street. THAT MAKES THE QUESTION RETARDED. Rand even said the purpose was to humiliate the president, not to prove a point, or make the US better or........

Just humiliate the president. If Rand was a single IQ point higher, he might be smart enough to understand that he is the one who should be feeling humiliation.

The point is that Obama has claimed that he has the authority to determine that someone is a danger to the United States and issue secret Kill on sight orders on that person any where in the world.

That includes the United States and that makes the question serious. As well as who, if they are on American soil, is Obama giving the order to? The Military? That would violate Posse Commitatus. The CIA? That would violate other laws. The FBI? The U.S. Marshalls? Do they even have drones?

You are making no significant point. The President has constitutional power to defend the country as necessary. There is nothing you can do about that. My best advice is don't act like drone food.

Really?

Then the left's and Obama's caterwailling about President Bush authorizing torture, illegal phone taps, etc were all about nothing?

Either we have a Constitution and the rule of law or we don't. Which is it?

 

[OriginalShroom]

And nothing the administration has done, The2ndAmendment, has justified Rand's or your nonsense.

Two words, kiddo: step off.

Try the death of a 16 year old American Citizen who was not attacking the U.S. at the time of his death by Drone overseas.

If Obama could order that, why wouldn't he order the same on American soil? After all, he believes he has the "authority" to issue secret "Kill on sight" orders without any review by anyone else.

A wanted individual who refuses to surrender and hides among others is responsible for the injury to others.

You wish to create a "shield" defense, but such won't hold up in court.

Remember that drones don't kill people, but that people kill people.

And you didn't answer the question.

If Obama can order the death of a 16 year old American Citizen by drone who was not in the process of attacking Americans, but merely eating dinner overseas, using your logic he can do the same thing here on American Soil.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The point is that Obama has claimed that he has the authority to determine that someone is a danger to the United States and issue secret Kill on sight orders on that person any where in the world.

That includes the United States and that makes the question serious. As well as who, if they are on American soil, is Obama giving the order to? The Military? That would violate Posse Commitatus. The CIA? That would violate other laws. The FBI? The U.S. Marshalls? Do they even have drones?

You are making no significant point. The President has constitutional power to defend the country as necessary. There is nothing you can do about that. My best advice is don't act like drone food.

Really?

Then the left's and Obama's caterwailling about President Bush authorizing torture, illegal phone taps, etc were all about nothing?

Either we have a Constitution and the rule of law or we don't. Which is it?

We live by the Rule of Law, which the President should follow, not by the rule of man, which is what you reactionaries want to follow.

Drones are technology nothing more.

 

[dblack]

You are making no significant point. The President has constitutional power to defend the country as necessary. There is nothing you can do about that. My best advice is don't act like drone food.

Really?

Then the left's and Obama's caterwailling about President Bush authorizing torture, illegal phone taps, etc were all about nothing?

Either we have a Constitution and the rule of law or we don't. Which is it?

We live by the Rule of Law, which the President should follow, not by the rule of man, which is what you reactionaries want to follow.

Drones are technology nothing more.

The law guarantees due process. Executive ordered assassination is not due process. It is the opposite of Rule of Law.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Due process is not involved in the apprehension of suspects. Stay on track.

 

[dblack]

Due process is not involved in the apprehension of suspects. Stay on track.

Assassination is not apprehension. Strive for more clarity.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Due process is not involved in the apprehension of suspects. Stay on track.

Assassination is not apprehension. Strive for more clarity.

When a suspect knowingly and willingly and voluntarily prevents the normal manner of apprehension, then force as necessary is allowed.

You can't win this. Due process has nothing to do with it. Strive for more clarity.