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.”
If there’s second Civil War there won’t be any law at all and the resulting dystopia will make everyone’s, left or right, worst nightmare look like Valhalla.
Personally I relish the thought! Justice & retribution is long overdue for these murderous lying devils, that we call senators & representatives & the judicial branch & executive branch. The tree of liberty is thirsty for the blood of tyrants and unfortunately that of patriots as well.
Ah, Pat Benatar, a real talent. My favorite is probably Bloodshot Eyes.
Where the hell did you get the idea that I am in favor of that????
What I am against is sending our ground forces over there in dribs and drabs, spending our blood and treasure for over a decade (Bush's fault as much as Obama's) and not achieving victory because of our "Care Bears rules of engagement" and because we fantasize that there are Afghanis/Pakistanis/Iraqis who are our "allies" when in fact 99.9 percent of them would slit an American soldier's throat and piss on his corpse.
If that's the best we can do, then by God yes, we should keep our army and marines at home.
Does McCain and Lindsey Graham come up for re-election in 14?
If so, I will be sending $$$ their opponents in the primary.
These two are a threat to this nation and our Bill of Rights. Traitor b@st@rds!
>>>And the source of your “understanding” is what exactly —— thin air?
Uh, no, it was the letter Holder sent to senator Paul:
Dear Senator Paul,
On February 20, 2013, you write to John Brennan requesting additional information concerning the administration’s views about whether “the President has the power to authorize lethal force, such as a drone strike, against a U.S. citizen on U.S. soil,
and without trial.”
As members of this Administration have previously indicated, the US government has not carried out drone strikes in the United States and have no intention of doing so. As a policy matter, moreover, we reject the use of military force where well-established law enforcement authorities in this country provide the best means for incapacitating a terrorist threat. We have a long history of using the criminal justice system to incapacitate individuals located in our country who pose a threat to the United States and its interests abroad. Hundreds of individual have been arrested and convicted of terrorism-related offenses in our federal courts.
The question you have posed is entirely hypothetical, unlikely to occur and 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 of a catastrophic attack like the ones suffered on Dec. 7, 1941 and Sept. 11, 2001.
***Were such an emergency to arise, I would examine the particular facts and
circumstances before advising the President on the scope of his authority.***
Sincerely,
Eric Holder,
Attorney General
[See last paragraph of letter.
And apologies, House Atreides, if your post was an unsuccessful attempt at an intelligent reply. I had presumed — incorrectly — that you had some abilities in that regard.]
Graham does and I’ll be supporting his primary opponent also.
GoodDay, the letter under instant discussion in the posting to which you directed your comment (to which, in turn, I commented—apparently in a manner that upset you) was the “Thursday letter”. The “Thursday letter” is, character by character, as follows:
*************
The Attorney General
Washington,D.C.
March 7, 2013
The Honorable Rand Paul
United States Senate
Washington, DC 20510
Dear Senator Paul:
It has come to my attention that you have now asked an additional question: “Does the President have the authority to use a weaponized drone to kill an American not engaged in combat on American soil?” The answer to that question is no.
Sincerely,
Eric H. Holder, Jr.
********************************
And that “Thursday letter” was what I had in mind when I commented on your posting (specifically post # 170 in which YOU brought forward the words “Thursday” & “letter”, so a logical reader might well think that was the letter to which you were directing your comment). You’ve NOW posted an EARLIER letter which you’ve apparently confused with the Thursday letter. Clarity in thinking and writing is a virtue. Have a GoodDay.
And, by the way, I apologize for lacking your ability to successfully produce “an intelligent reply”.
An American citizen engaged in combat against America(ns) on American soil should be an authorized target of the president. As long as our Congress, Senate and Courts are functioning I feel it is proper and correct to take out anyone attempting to destroy the American government.
Now should we become tyrannic, that when CWII starts and we should fight to restore the Republic.
WHAT IS A PATRIOT?
PATRIOTS are not “Revolutionaries” trying to overthrow the government of the United States.
PATRIOTS are “Counter-Revolutionaries” trying to prevent the government of the United States, from overthrowing the Constitution of the United States. - Unknown Author
Who defines “engaged in combat”? The same folks who defined it for Ruby Ridge?
McCain. The War Hero who crashed two jet airplanes and get captured. He certainly paid for his pain but not the glory.
The divide and conquer has been pushed to his opponents now by Bozo, the clown, and; it is sad that so many allow this totally lame and highly questionable office holder to divide us.
Obama had one goal after he got some tax hikes, and; that was more tax money to spend. He alays wants more, always has received more,and he has always recived free this and that from every AA program in the USA. No wonder Colin Powel, the man who never commanded a platoon, a rifle company, nor a battalion in combat,and one who sat in staff/desk jockey jobs in Infantry units became a 4 star. AA has got to stop.
Remember "We are all Georgians"? McCain is kinda' quiet about that now, ain't he? Why isn't somebody quizzing him, "Were you right or wrong about that, Senator?" the way he did Hagel?
How'd you like to be courting war with Russia over f'n Ossettia for McCain's gangster cronies in Georgia?
That's bothering me. Senator Paul and everyone else are talking about drones. What about snipers? What about a Seal Team blowing up a meeting of radicals? We've got military units training in American towns. We had the military assist (I believe) in blowing up Americans in Waco.
You don't have to be Alex Jones to know that this is about more than drones.
Righto. Interesting it is not covered by a war surtax rather than whacking the social budget.
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.