Rand Paul Fires Back at Fascist McCain and Graham

[Katzndogz]

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.

You need a slight correction, the target of that drone strike was Anwar al-Awlaqi who was an American citizen. In the car with him was his 16 year old son who was NOT an American citizen and a friend who was not an American citizen. At the time of this killing Awlaki was not engaged in any terrorist activity. He was just driving down the road.

The question that this regime refused to answer is would they use the same tactics in this country that they use overseas. After 13 hours of filibuster, Rand Paul got the answer "No". This doesn't mean that a drone could not be used against someone actively engaged in some terrorist activity at that moment. It means that someone who is a non combatant could not be murdered on nothing more than the presidebt's whim.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The question that this regime refused to answer is would they use the same tactics in this country that they use overseas AGAINST UNARMED CIVILIANS WHO WERE NOT RESISTING ARREST.

Get it correct, please.

 

[Katzndogz]

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.

That is the state of the law and always has been. But refusing to surrender is not the question.

A terrorist is wanted in connection with several attacks within the United States. There is an order to capture or kill him if capture is not successful.

The home of the terrorist is identified and a bomb is dropped on the house just as the family is about to sit down to dinner.

Is this legal?

Of course not. That's why no one ever does it like that. The man has to refuse to surrender which means he has to be given the opportunity to surrender. Law enforcement has to identify themselves. They have to give the target an opportunity to put their hands up and surrender. Under certain circumstances there are no knock laws which permits a surprise entry but that has nothing to do with surrender. It has to do with giving the target an opportunity to dispose of evidence.

If the law enforcement agency has given the person an opportunity to surrender and he responds by shooting at them, then sure, drop a bomb on the house. Under our laws the target is responsible for the deaths of everyone there.

 

[dblack]

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.

Agreed. Assassination has nothing to do with due process nor rule of law. Drones strikes are not attempts at "apprehension". Honesty might make your arguments more compelling.

 

[Katzndogz]

The question that this regime refused to answer is would they use the same tactics in this country that they use overseas AGAINST UNARMED CIVILIANS WHO WERE NOT RESISTING ARREST.

Get it correct, please.

Okay. That's just as good.

 

[Katzndogz]

The reason for the drone strikes are (you do know why there are these drone strikes don't you?) is because obama has a policy of not capturing terrorists and questioning them. Since they aren't going to be questioned, there is no reason to capture them. obama has no need of intelligence sources.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

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.

But in that same scenario (unlikely though it may be), AG Holder thinks the President can have a drone fly up the guy's nose.

Acts of war (in progress) are not mere criminal acts. I happen to agree (much to my own consternation) with President Obama on this one. Thus, I disagree to some extent with Rand Paul's musings about "due process." Due process applies to a criminal proceeding, not to war. And if the claimed authority to send a drone up the bad guy's ass is strictly limited to an act of war, to prevent the immediate risk of injuries to America or her people, then I can't help but reject the claim that getting the bad guy with a drone strike is somehow unConstitutional.

But at least Rand is giving thought to the matter. At least he cares about the Constitution.

So although I reluctantly agree with the substance of McCain's commentary about Rand's position, I completely reject McCain's effort to 'rebuke' Rand Paul.

The GOP has problems. Big ones. McCain himself is one of those problems when he speaks like that. Rand may be off base (and that's my view of his thesis), but there was nothing about his efforts that were unseemly.

He never said anything approaching what you just claimed.

He who?

Rand never said what I said he said?

Or McCain didn't?

Feel free to show me what was said (by whichever one you are talking about) that differs substantively from the way I put it.

 

[The2ndAmendment]

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.

And no one is arguing against the government's ability to use Lethal Force against an individual also using legal force, again you are putting those words in our mouths.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

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 is simply an idiot. There's no reason to even consider the nonsense he posts.

As for me, I didn't put any words in anybody's mouth.

The problem with Rand Paul is that he keeps talking about "due process" where it just doesn't apply.

And he sure as shit did do so, when he replied to the pompous bleatings of McCain.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

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

^ yet further proof that JakeStarkey doesn't have the first clue on the subject he bleats on about.

"Due process" is involved in the apprehension of suspects.

 

[Truthmatters]

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.

was he the TARGET or collateral damage?


Please prove he was the intended target

 

[The2ndAmendment]

You need a slight correction, the target of that drone strike was Anwar al-Awlaqi who was an American citizen. In the car with him was his 16 year old son who was NOT an American citizen and a friend who was not an American citizen.

LIAR LIAR LIAR AND YOU KNOW IT.

Anwar al-Awlaqi's son was killed WEEKS AFTER his father in a separate drone strike. Stop lying.

The general premise is correct though, he was killed in a drone strike targeting someone else, and happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time.

Since these things are not happening over US soil, they aren't as large of a concern because it is too difficult to enforce the US Constitution overseas. However, once the AG says they intend to start using drones over US soil, and the only existing drone model that is used overseas does precisely what Rand Paul asked, it is certainly within the rights of a US Senator (or any citizen for that matter), to ask which parts of the foreign drone program/policy are we going to use within our interior. There exists no domestic drone model/policy for us to examine otherwise. All we have to observe is the foreign model.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

McCain and Graham have always been hawks on defense. They both want to invade Iran, and see no problem with putting boots on the ground to further their goals. Having them defend Obama should scare every lineal on the planet, yet you think they are suddenly hunky dory.

 

[JakeStarkey]

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

^ yet further proof that JakeStarkey doesn't have the first clue on the subject he bleats on about.

"Due process" is involved in the apprehension of suspects.

IM is flapping his lips.

I am on patrol, IlarMeilyr is staggering down the road drunk with a gun, I pull over, get out, tell him to put down the gun, he turns around with it pointing it at me . . . there is no due process here.

IM, you are one less than mediocre minimal mind here.

 

[JakeStarkey]

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.

And no one is arguing against the government's ability to use Lethal Force against an individual also using legal force, again you are putting those words in our mouths.

No, I am correcting the original Randian statement of "unarmed American citizens."

Oh, and some one go educate IlarMeilyr on LEO powers of arrest and due process.

IM is miminal mind on the loose.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

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.

And no one is arguing against the government's ability to use Lethal Force against an individual also using legal force, again you are putting those words in our mouths.

No, I am correcting the original Randian statement of "unarmed American citizens."

Oh, and some one go educate IlarMeilyr on LEO powers of arrest and due process.

IM is miminal mind on the loose.

^ Jake is such a fraud he thinks police officers can arrest without probable cause. OR maybe he just doesn't grasp that probable cause is a part of due process of law.

JakeStarkey: is he ignorant of just pitifully dishonest? Sadly, those are the only choices.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

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

^ yet further proof that JakeStarkey doesn't have the first clue on the subject he bleats on about.

"Due process" is involved in the apprehension of suspects.

IM is flapping his lips.

I am on patrol, IlarMeilyr is staggering down the road drunk with a gun, I pull over, get out, tell him to put down the gun, he turns around with it pointing it at me . . . there is no due process here.

IM, you are one less than mediocre minimal mind here.

Wow. Jake's dishonesty and/or abject ignorance is monumental.

Try to get a handle on it, Jake you fraud.

Under your silly scenario, Officer Fraud, I would be getting the appropriate attention from a law enforcement officer and every single bit of the process to which I would be due.

Try to keep up. I know your mind is sadly defective on more than one level, but still. There's no excuse for your constant flow of correctable ignorance or dishonesty.

 

[tjvh]

Why is it that Liberals love everything about John McCain, except when he runs for President? I already know the answer, do you?

 

[dblack]

Why is it that Liberals love everything about John McCain, except when he runs for President? I already know the answer, do you?

There is a divide in politics that isn't reflected in the left/right, Republican/Democrat split. Authoritarians and libertarians are at least as bitterly opposed as liberals and conservatives. There are plenty of authoritarians in both camps and when push comes to shove, their allegiance to the power of the state overrides their advertised ideology.

To put it another way, the neo-cons are running both parties.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

Why is it that Liberals love everything about John McCain, except when he runs for President? I already know the answer, do you?

There is a divide in politics that isn't reflected in the left/right, Republican/Democrat split. Authoritarians and libertarians are at least as bitterly opposed as liberals and conservatives. There are plenty of authoritarians in both camps and when push comes to shove, their allegiance to the power of the state overrides their advertised ideology.

To put it another way, the neo-cons are running both parties.

^ Pretty meaningless labels. All around.

How do we properly define "authoritarians?"

Nobody ever posts a coherent definition of "neocon" whatever the fuck it's supposed to have meant when first coined.

Our Constitution both recognized a need for the federal government to have meaningful power (there being no point creating a federal government at all if it was intended to be a eunuch) AND a need to impose checks and balances so that the authority and power granted by the States and the people to the federal government would not become too large and dangerous to our competing sovereignty and interests in liberty.

I therefore laugh when I see folks trumpeting all liberty interests as superseding federal (or any) government power and authority. Similarly, I laugh when I see those who acknowledge government authority and power claim, as a flat unqualified assertion, that it trumps liberty interests.

The truth is often found somewhere in the middle and this is such a case. Sometimes, even if we don't like it, the federal government does have powers and authorities that circumscribe to some extent our expectations of our liberty interests. Yet, sometimes, our liberty interests do just flat-out trump the claim of the federal government to having certain powers.