Yet even if we concede that, as we should, Paul’s real beef is something else. The attempt to shift the discussion about drones to the fanciful suggestion that the Justice Department might target Tea Party members is a red herring. Paul’s core objection to the drone program remains what he calls the “perpetual war” against Islamist terrorists.
But Paul does seem to oppose the drone strikes. Indeed, anyone who heard all or most of his several hours of talk on the subject heard a great deal that shows he thinks the “perpetual war” against the Islamists is the real problem.
The unfortunate fact is that Americans will have to continue fighting al-Qaeda. This is not because our leaders lust for war or are enraptured with drone technology, but because our enemies believe they are engaged in war that will go on for generations until we succumb. Winning that struggle will require patience and endurance as well as the will to seek out these enemies wherever they may be plotting. Targeted killings of these terrorists are necessary and effective. But Paul’s core critique of the administration is not about a theoretical drone attack in the United States but about this very tactic.
I mean...REALLY!
Sorry. You’ve lost me.
BS article.
Rand’s queston was very specific about citizens NOT engaged in combat against the USA.
His position on radical islam has nothing to do with this. Video here:
http://blog.heritage.org/2013/02/06/video-rand-paul-on-the-rise-of-islamic-radicalism/
Your article is a disgusting hit piece filled with lies.
“Like communism, radical Islam is an ideology with worldwide reach,” Rand Paul said. “Containing radical Islam requires a worldwide strategy like containment.”
Paul argued that adopting a Reagan-like stance in American foreign policy would better serve American interests.
“The truth is that Reagan used clear messages of communism’s evil and clear exposition of America’s strength to contain and ultimately transcend the Soviet Union,” he said.
Paul’s speech was delivered on Reagan’s 102nd birthday. More than 300 people attended the event, filling two auditoriums.
...............
Rand Paul is 100% correct. Not many politicians have the balls to say that radical islam is evil.
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Peace/2013/01/31/Sen-Rand-Paul-Amendment-No-F-16s-To-Egypt
In defending holder, mcstain and obungo you've really gone around the bend to full on nutter.
That’s not what I heard.
I heard Paul say if the American takes up arms against the U.S. in a war zone(Middle East), shoot him. He relinquishes his Constitutional protections
when he takes up arms on foreign soil.
His question was what about doing it in the U.S.? Several officials have declared the War on Terror is worldwide and includes the U.S.
Does that make drone strikes on our soil legal?
The answers he got were, hypothetical, unlikely, only if the terrorist could not be captured any other way or it was too difficult.
And then the question as to whether said terrorist was actually in the act of a terrorist strike or merely sitting at a sidewalk cafe unarmed.
Collateral damage, convoys carrying the perp plus others came up also.
Who could be defined as a terrorist ‘worthy’ of having a kill order place on them?
I thought he was spot on.
The Bill of Rights refresher course he presented alone was worth the hours of watching. I couldn’t put it down.
Spamming this website for John McCain must pay well. There’s no other explanation for your continual nonsense.
Democrats stick by their own kind.
Fellow thieves. Fellow vandals. Fellow rapists. Fellow murderers (especially of children).
They dream of the day when they get to treat us the same way we would be treated in Pakistan or Somalia. Buy more bullets!
We've been fighting this not-quite-war for twelve years, twice as long as it took us to stamp out Hitler and Tojo, and both Bush and Obama are to blame for its failure. Yes, FAILURE.
Sir, when we start fighting with all our strength and with the determination to extinguish the enemy's ideology from the planet, then I'll consider it "war". Not before.
While we have not yet seen the tactic employed I would consider some other thoughts in regards to the use of drones.
0bama ordered an American citizen killed in Yemen.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/10/world/middleeast/anwar-al-awlaki-a-us-citizen-in-americas-cross-hairs.html?_r=0
Now, many here will dismiss this killing as he was an ‘enemy combatant,’ traitor, etc. And yes, to a degree I do get that, but was he never legally declared that through due process?
And this is indeed where I have my real big sticking point on this drone program as a whole. Let’s say you decide to go on vacation in a foreign land. Mexico maybe, the Carribean, or maybe Canada I don’t know...you are just out of the country for some reason be it business or pleasure. Consider in your mind that by being a member of the Tea Party, posting here on FR, going to protests, or make strong worded calls to your representative has somehow put you on ‘the list.’ We all sort of joke about being on the government list(s).
The drone program is a very neat and tidy assissination program on foreign soil, isn’t it.
We all more or less agreed that the idea of the drone program inside the U.S. would freak us out. You never know how the government defines radical/extremist/enemy combatant very well these days, do you?
Perpetual war and the battlefield is everywhere and the government has an ever growing kill list.
I don’t think Rand is against killing islamist terrorists. I do think he is against killing American citizens without some sort of due process of law.
” The missile strike on Sept. 30, 2011, that killed Mr. Awlaki — a terrorist leader whose death lawyers in the Obama administration believed to be justifiable — also killed Mr. Khan, though officials had judged he was not a significant enough threat to warrant being specifically targeted. The next month, another drone strike mistakenly killed Mr. Awlaki’s 16-year-old son, Abdulrahman, who had set off into the Yemeni desert in search of his father. Within just two weeks, the American government had killed three of its own citizens in Yemen. Only one had been killed on purpose. “
Lawyers determined it justifiable, not a court, not a military court, lawyers and 0bama. That is a lot or power.
This is a very slipperly slope and there is one thing I do know in my heart, I do not trust my government with this kind of power here in the U.S. And if I am afraid here, but know I am protected from them here...why should that change if I need to leave the country?
I agree with this response.
No one is proposing to kill innocent Americans.
But we can’t exclude the possibility it may be necessary to use drones to terminate Islamic terrorists here in America. I’d rather kill them first than see Americans dead.
Rand Paul wants to read them their constitutional rights. I don’t want them to mass murder Americans. For me, its not even a close call.
The Constitution is not a suicide pact.
No matter how anyone spins it the issue is the US Constitution.
Is the Constitution still the law of the land or can Obama continue to ignore it and govern as he sees fit?
Paul had the guts to finally challenge Obama on his unconstitutional governance.
Obama finally had to back down and admit the Constitution still reigned supreme, but it was obvious he didn’t want to.
Would it have been OK with Holder and the current President if the former President, named Bush, did a drone strike on the Lakawana 7, you know the al queada cell in NY state? What about the al queada cell found in Bly, Oregon, could Bush, former President, same position and power, drone bomb the cell in Bly?
“...the fanciful suggestion that the Justice Department might target Tea Party members is a red herring.”
Yeah, that’s almost as absurd as the fanciful suggestion that they want to confiscate all privately owned guns. Or the fanciful suggestion that they would arm Mexican drug cartels in order to increase gun violence in an attempt to do the same. Or the red herring of the government compiling enemies lists.
The whole premise of this argument can be framed in this fashion with this question: Do we trust this president to do the right thing, ever? The answer is no. That is why this filibuster came to be to begin with. Nothing else. Few of them can be trusted. And that includes McCain and Graham and their remarks like “I think [sic] disservice to a lot Americans by making them think that somehow they’re in danger from their government,” McCain said, “they’re not” (Miller, Yahoo News). Oh really!
I say if an American citizen turns out to be a terrorist, drone him!!! I can’t believe conservatives are against this. Very weird!
Actually, it is deeper than that.
A philosophical reason is that “On the president’s own initiative(1), and without congressional approval(2), he can, with minimal expense(3), conduct acts of war in other nations(4).”
(1) Obama has already *delegated* target selection to an underling not approved by the US senate. So some faceless guy in the White House puts out kill orders in aggressive acts against other nations.
(2) In effect, this ends the War Powers Act, because as “unique” acts, as far as Obama is concerned, the Act does not apply.
(3) There is no inherent risk to American lives (excepting targets), and if the drones are prepositions, the entire cost is the price of the flight, resulting maintenance, and replacement cost of the weaponry.
(4) No mistake, these are acts of war, violating other nations airspace, in contravention of international treaties, to attack one or more of their citizens. Were the tables turned, we would be nationally enraged.
Tobin’s picking the wrong fight and putting a target on his own mindset in the process.
This so-called war on Islamist terror is a fraud.
The so-called War on Terror is just a propaganda campaign to scare gullible Americans into giving up their wealth and liberty. DHS, TSA, the Patriot Act, the NDAA, the militarization and federalization of local police was always meant for the American people, specifically the ones who won't give up their wealth or liberty without a fight.