Posted on 03/07/2013 12:51:49 PM PST by jazusamo
Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) blasted fellow GOP Sens. John McCain (R-Ariz.) and Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) on Thursday, saying the two “think the whole world is a battlefield.”
Paul criticized the hawkish senators for thinking the laws of war should take precedence over the Bill of Rights. The two had criticized Paul’s statements about drone policy during the Kentucky Republican’s 13-hour filibuster on Thursday.
“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.
“This was a very serious question. It was a question that took a month and a half to get an answer to and I so I would argue and I think a lot of the public would agree with me, both on the right and the left, that what we ask was a very serious question and it's a question that we finally got an answer to,” Paul said.
Attorney General Eric Holder on Thursday responded to Paul in a letter that said the U.S. does not have the authority to conduct a drone attack against a U.S. citizen on American soil.
“Hooray, for 13 hours yesterday we asked them that question. And so there is a result and a victory,” Paul said after the letter was read to him during the Fox interview. “Under duress and under public humiliation the White House will respond and do the right thing.”
The answer just took a filibuster that lasted almost half a day, Paul added.
“So now, after 13 hours of filibuster, we're proud to announce that the president is not going to kill unarmed Americans on American soil,” Paul continued. “My next question is why did it take so long, why is it so hard and why would a president so jealously guard power that they were afraid to say this but I am glad and I think that the answer does answer my question.”
Both under Obama and Bush, the foolish policy of promoting "democracy" in Muslim and other Third World countries lead to the replacement of secular dictators with Islamists or political radicals, or else opened up entire regions for sectarian and tribal strife that had been kept dormant by unpleasant but necessary dictators.
The GOP's right wing is correct to oppose sending troops (or even arms) to the Syrian rebels, although the unfortunate truth of the matter is that if it were Bush rather than Obama promoting them, many of these same skeptics (not necessarily Rand Paul himself) would be talking out of the other side of their mouths.
I'm hoping that the growing prominence of Rand Paul and others like him will retore some sanity to our foreign policy, so that we intervene when issues of national security are at stake, as opposed to trumped-up ideological agendas.
I don’t believe that was the gist of the argument.
I think most Americans agree with your point.
The questions evolved from the case where we vaporized the 16 yr old in Yemen.
The kid was deemed to be a member of Al Queda, but reports did not have him involved in an active plot.
After the drone memo was leaked, many questions began to form ... When are citizens considered to be members of “terrorist” groups (it isn’t limited to Al Queda and lefties are quite fond of calling everyone they don’t like a terrorist)
Can the drone rules applied overseas be applied here as well?
Can an american citizen, deemed to be part of a “terrorist” group (as defined by the current regime) but not involved in an active plot - be droned?
Now add in the recent purchases of ammo and tanks by DHS.
There is genuine reason for concern
McCain and Graham, should think in that direction.
Paul for president. NOW. Impeach Obama, McCain, Graham, Romney, and anyone who supports their “America-as-policeman” worldview.
Rand Paul is exactly right - GWB McCain Graham Boehner et al have led this party over a cliff.
The bolded part is not referenced as per any source. Nor is it followed up in the actual text of the entry.
Contrast that to the section on the two men killed by police in the building, prior to the eviction, who are known and named.
Perhaps the vague unattributed statement:
"Veterans were also shot dead at other locations during the demonstration"
is true, but it does not provide any evidence, nor does it imply the circumstances (if it happened) nor does it indicate it was military firing on the Marchers during eviction.
Oh, the location of where you’re shot makes all the difference in the world! /s
The issue was the Army firing on citizens en masse in the eviction, which is claimed often.
I've seen no evidence that happened nor any first hand claims.
There's no question the police killed two. Police are not the Army, nor was it in cold blood, but during an altercation prior to the eviction at a different location than the camp site.
Are you claiming the Army fired on citizens during the eviction?
Routing a Ragtag ArmyThe president responded promptly.
"You will have United States troops proceed immediately to the scene of the disorder," Secretary of War Patrick J. Hurley told Gen. Douglas MacArthur in a memo dated 2:55 p.m. July 28, 1932. "Surround the affected area and clear it without delay."
About two hours later, four troops of cavalry, four companies of infantry, a mounted machine gun squadron and six whippet tanks lined up on Pennsylvania Avenue near 12th Street. Some of America's greatest military minds were on hand. MacArthur, the commander, was there with Maj. Dwight D. Eisenhower and one of his officers, George S. Patton Jr.
(snip)
The press ran a list of casualties the next day that included one marcher who was shot to death by police and 26 veterans, 15 residents, 11 police officers, five soldiers and one news photographer who had been hospitalized.
There you go, this says only one bonus marcher was shot to death. Now you can excuse the whole thing and call it a shining example of Presidential-Federal authority.
About two hours later, four troops of cavalry, four companies of infantry, a mounted machine gun squadron and six whippet tanks lined up on Pennsylvania Avenue near 12th Street. Some of America's greatest military minds were on hand. MacArthur, the commander, was there with Maj. Dwight D. Eisenhower and one of his officers, George S. Patton Jr.
Nothing to see here citizen. Move along. No one was actually killed so quitcher bitchin'.
Thank you for confirming what I've been saying.
This reference you cite actually states only one man was killed by police, rather than two.
When I first looked in to this many years ago, I found the book:
B.E.F.: The Whole Story of the Bonus Army (Amazon link)
by Walter W. Waters (Wikipedia entry for Waters)
BEF stands for Bonus Expeditionary Force and Waters was one of the organizers.
His book was published in 1933 and did not make any claims of the Army firing on them.
There's no reason for your attitude.
About two hours later, four troops of cavalry, four companies of infantry, a mounted machine gun squadron and six whippet tanks lined up on Pennsylvania Avenue near 12th Street. Some of America's greatest military minds were on hand. MacArthur, the commander, was there with Maj. Dwight D. Eisenhower and one of his officers, George S. Patton Jr.
That is what you're making excuses for and you think I can't be taken seriously? You're a miserable excuse for a human being.
About two hours later, four troops of cavalry, four companies of infantry, a mounted machine gun squadron and six whippet tanks lined up on Pennsylvania Avenue near 12th Street. Some of America's greatest military minds were on hand. MacArthur, the commander, was there with Maj. Dwight D. Eisenhower and one of his officers, George S. Patton Jr.
It does not state that they fired.
They used gas to rout them out.
Perfectly acceptable actions by a president and the Federal government then. I understand your position and there’s no further need for you to defend it.
This is an example of why you are not to be taken seriously. I have only been addressing factual matters -- ie what actually happened.
It's also an acknowledgment that you were presented incorrect facts.
I just conceded every point to you. What more do you want? A hug and a pat on the head for defending the inexcusable?
I am not defending anything — there’s no need for you to attribute such to me.
I solely posted on this topic for accuracy of historical fact. And if I were wrong in the facts as I knew them I would be happy to stand corrected.
No one in the Bonus Army was shot or killed in the eviction. A baby died of tear gas.
Proved incorrect. What was the point of posting that if you weren't defending what happened there? In the context of this thread it has no other meaning.
In the eviction
The two were killed prior to the eviction by police. That incident was one that influenced the authorities to order the eviction by US troops that MacArthur lead.
In the eviction a baby died from the gas. I am not including the baby as "in the Bonus Army".
As I have stated, communist propagandists use this incident to equate moral equivalence of the US and communist regimes by falsely stating the US Army fired on and murdered US citizens.
There is a false impression that exists that the US Army fired on the Bonus Marchers en masse and killed many of them that is used as communist or anti-American propaganda.
Such incorrect facts need to be corrected.
Why? Your corrections are incorrect and irrelevant.
When 12-week-old Bernard Myers died in the hospital after being caught in the tear gas attack, a government investigation reported he died of enteritis, while a hospital spokesman said the tear gas "didn't do it any good."
You still haven't provided your ChiCom source of misinformation.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.