Posted on 04/24/2013 9:15:29 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
Here's the statement he released last night, following the Cavuto segment that Ed wrote about yesterday. I think he's right: Even during the filibuster, he allowed for the use of military force (i.e. drones) to stop an attack on U.S. soil that's in progress. His objection was to the White House using drones to liquidate someone who was merely plotting, who hadn't lifted a finger (yet) to do any actual damage.
“My comments last night left the mistaken impression that my position on drones had changed.
“Let me be clear: it has not. Armed drones should not be used in normal crime situations. They only may only be considered in extraordinary, lethal situations where there is an ongoing, imminent threat. I described that scenario previously during my Senate filibuster.
“Additionally, surveillance drones should only be used with warrants and specific targets.
“Fighting terrorism and capturing terrorists must be done while preserving our constitutional protections. This was demonstrated last week in Boston. As we all seek to prevent future tragedies, we must continue to bear this in mind.”
That’s super, but that’s not what most people took from the filibuster. The big-picture point was that, on American soil at least, U.S. citizens deserve due process from the feds that foreign terrorist suspects don’t get, which is hard to reconcile with Paul telling Cavuto that having a drone kill a suspect who’s just robbed a liquor store is no different than the cops doing it. Foreign Policy, writing about the uproar among Ron Paul fans over Rand’s comments, notes this line from the beginning of his filibuster:
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.
Per that logic, you assuredly don’t want a drone firing at the liquor-store suspect. The guy hasn’t been charged or convicted yet; he’s not engaged in any sort of terrorist attack; there’s no obvious need for military weaponry like drones to stop him when the police are available. The whole point of the filibuster, I thought, was to raise the bar for using lethal drones in the United States as high as possible. Now he seems to be lowering it to include common crime. Huh?
Rick Ungar makes a good point too about the back and forth between Holder and Paul before the filibuster. Remember this passage from the letter Holder sent to Paul on March 5 addressing his concerns about domestic drone use against terror plotters?
The question you have posed is therefore entirely hypothetical, unlikely to occur, and one we hope no president will ever have to confront. It is possible, I suppose, to imagine an extraordinary circumstance in which it would be necessary and appropriate under the Constitution and applicable laws of the United States for the President to authorize the military to use lethal force within the territory of the United States. For example, the president could conceivably have no choice but to authorize the military to use such force if necessary to protect the homeland in the circumstances like a catastrophic attack like the ones suffered on December 7, 1941, and September 11, 2001.
That sounds like Paul’s position: Drones are okay in emergency situations, when there’s an attack in progress. The day after Holder sent him that letter, though, Paul’s office issued an indignant response:
Attorney General Holder stated in a letter to Sen. Paul dated March 4, 2013: “It is possible, I suppose, to imagine an extraordinary circumstance in which it would be necessary and appropriate under the Constitution and applicable laws of the United States for the President to authorize the military to use lethal force within the territory of the United States.”
“The U.S. Attorney General’s refusal to rule out the possibility of drone strikes on American citizens and on American soil is more than frightening – it is an affront the Constitutional due process rights of all Americans,” Sen. Paul said.
It was a constitutional abomination that Holder wouldn’t categorically rule out drone strikes (except in an emergency defense of the homeland) sufficient to warrant a 13-hour filibuster, and a month later Paul’s telling Cavuto that it’s okay to drop a bomb on a liquor-store robber? What? Even his new standard announced in last night’s statement about drones being okay in “extraordinary, lethal situations where there is an ongoing, imminent threat” seems a bit lower than Holder’s standard of 9/11-type mass attacks. No wonder the Ron Paul fans are angry.
What you’re seeing here is really just an especially stark example of Rand Paul trying to somehow maintain his Paulworld libertarian cred while straining to please more mainstream conservatives ahead of 2016. The filibuster was clever because it pleased both groups, taking a stand on civil liberties to make Obama squirm. But the Tsarnaev case ended up highlighting just how narrow his objection was: He’s not against using lethal drones against U.S. citizens on American soil unless they’re merely suspected of plotting something. If they’re suspected of having actually done something violent — whether it’s been proved yet or not — then go nuts, I guess. And truth be told, Paul’s filibuster “victory,” culminating in a letter from Holder affirming that drones won’t be used unless a suspect is “engaged in combat,” was always a thin victory. The whole point of the debate is how you define “combat”; the White House’s lawyers define it broadly, so Holder’s letter really ended up conceding nothing. Oh well.
Wouldn’t “reforming” the current hole filled system to have fewer holes still be “reform”?
So, you approve of the CURRENT system.
IOW... You just don’t like Rand and will say anything, even if it make you sound like an idiot.
My Senator Ted Cruz supports immigration reform he is an amnesty lover too? Both Cruz and Paul want two things secure the border and enforce the laws with no new pathway to citizenship. Paul will allow some illegals to stay in country on a work visa, if you want to call that amnesty well ok it is a kindof amnesty but that is not what most people think amnesty means when talking about illegal immigration.
Why is this so difficult? Drones should be used in the same way that a cop uses his gun. If someone is in imminent danger then deadly force (whether from a gun or from a drone) is allowed. If no one is in imminent danger then you may not use deadly force.
Pretty simple to me.
quit flappin yer gums at me, its boring me
WASHINGTON — Sen. Rand Paul is calling for conservatives to embrace the cause of immigration reform, outlining a proposal that would grant some form of legal status to the estimated 11 million illegal immigrants after the federal government has certified that the border is secure...
What did he say in the letter to Reid that you object to? Seriously I can’t find anything in the letter that I don’t agree with.
Cruz has said “secure the border”, did Paul say those words?
He took the time to write a letter but didn’t bother to mention enforcing current law or the dangers of illegal immigration.
Amnesty is allowing law breakers to get away with their crime. Kinda simple
Stop telling lies and I’ll stop correcting you.
The media misquoted him? Paint me blue and slap me silly, I’m shocked!
http://www.paul.senate.gov/?p=issue&id=12
I guess all you people that do not want to secure the border and enforce the laws are very happy about the way things are now. Because the Marxist Rats are very very happy about the way things are now.
awwww I’ve hurt your feelings and you just can’t stop.
seek treatment
At least I’m not threatening you with death...
Well then we’re equal because I never did that either.
You did threaten me however. Invited me to come over for a fight or something.
what are you 12?
Some people think any solution other then deport them all is amnesty. Deport them all is fine with me, in fact it is my preferred solution in most cases. But given a Marxist media and a powerful Marxist political party (Democrats) deport them all is not going to happen. The best we can hope for is something like what Paul outlined, but I doubt the commies would ever let a Paul immigration bill onto the Senate floor. The GOP under Bush1 and Bush2 had the opportunty to enforce immigration laws and didn’t. If you want to look for a GOP villain on immigration look at Bush1 and Bush2.
Nope. I invited you to come talk to me face to face. This was after you said I needed to be killed.
It's like two Greek guys sitting in an outdoor cafe over coffee for hours on end every afternoon arguing how many angels can dance on the head of a pin....while their country's economy is crashing down around their caffein-addled heads.
If Paul, Palin, Bachman, Rush, etal let slip a garbled, unintentional or questionable semantic mystery once in a blue moon, I don't abandon them. They'll clear it up sooner or later.
Should they CONTINUE on the same questionable path, however, I'd call them out....and more!
Leni
Cut off their welfare and close the borders, like Rand wants to do, and they’ll deport themselves.
The only ones jumping through the hoops to stay here are the ones we want to keep anyway...
Did you even READ the quote, or are you just mouthing off? Certainly I want the border secure, but I do NOT want the illegals in to stay, that’s the problem with Rand’s idea. Unless he did not say what he meant to say.
Exactly correct, that was the only thing Romney got right in his campaign and the only reason I voted for him.
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.