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.”
O don’t get your point. What Paul is on about is that there exists, somewhere, a line between where and upon whom the gubmint can make war, and where and upon whom it is restricted by constitutional and other laws. Obviously if there were another civil war there would be domestic battlefields, and plenty more—though not infinite—leeway for gubmint to treat US citizens as outlaws. But that’s a rather huge step in itself, declaring war on all or part of the American people. I’m satisfied to call it another issue altogether.
John McCain is a collaborator.
You have Inhofe. You are actually better off than we are.
We live in N.J. & we have Lousenberg & Menendez. UGGGHHHH
However my district can claim Scott Garrett as our congressman. He is A good one.
Actually, it is.
Outstanding...They get right to the point and they’re dead on the mark.
“Not a fan of McCain of Graham but if Paul does nt understand that indeed the whole world is a battlefield then he needs to get out more.........”
I think he was referring more to the idea that McCain is SO pro war...he even backed Clinton in Kosovo. Actually he wanted to put troops on the ground.
Don’t know if anyone is watching, but McCain and Graham are doing a dog and pony show on the senate floor now.. CYA?
I’m reading Paul Kengor’s “The Crusader: Ronald Reagan and the Fall of Communism.” I just read the chapter on arming the Mujaheedin in their fight against the USSR and it left me asking “how did we come to replace the USSR in this hell hole?” If RR were alive today, I cannot believe he would support the mess we’ve made there. Oh, lest we forget, there are unforseen consequences for these imperial endeavors. The USSR had an epidemic of heroin abuse after their incursion into Afghanistan. Today, the United States is experiencing the same thing.
History is full of irony, and the greatest recurring ironies is that nations become that which they fight against. Not always, not completely, but far too often the similarities grow to outnumber the differences.
It is not that history repeats so much as human nature does not change.
After Sen. Rands filibuster and the belittling remarks he got from McCain and Graham I understand full well the context in which Rand said that.
It boggles my mind to hear McCain and his ilk aghast at the insinuation that fedguv would be so ungentlemanly as to drop a bomb on Jane Fonda. I tend to agree the prospect is unlikely, though much more likely for Jane Doe, the killing of whom fewer would notice. They act as if Waco and thousands of incidents like it never happened.
Makes me wonder, if they’re so blase about the potential for gubmint abuse of its massive capacity for violence, why bother being skeptical of any other of its powers? Running the national economy, for instance? Why doubt the president’s trueheartedness and probity in that arena? Then I look at McCain’s voting history, and realize, oh yeah, he’s fine with that, too.
Thank you for creating (and allowing me to borrow ) my new tagline. ;)
Why can't Nancy Pelosi say that she wouldn't abort a baby with just a foot remaining in the birth canal? Democrats are f###ing insane.
Thanks! Just saw 2 grammar errors in my letter to Rand Paul, hope both McCain and Graham can read pass those errors and feel the sting of my other words :)
“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,...
Enough said right there. That is what Traitor McCain thinks and apparently Graham and obviously 0bamugabe and his whole team. I stand with Rand because Rand Paul stands with the Constitution. The rest of those sorry SOBs consider We The People enemies and I'll return the favor and consider them mine.
I stand with Rand.
McLame wanted boots on the ground in Libya too.
I don’t that the original commenter has a clue what’s going on.
Best to find out before jumping in and looking a bit stupid.
The feds thought Ruby Ridge was a battlefield with enemy combatants. They brought military vehicles to the fight. And again at Waco.
I don’t want to get too much into the fight, Paul has his bad points and good points depending on the issue.
The Marco Rubio’s and Jeb Bush’s are all insiders as far as I’m concerned who make Tea Party noise.
Rand Paul is an interesting alternative but powerful money will be against him if he runs for president with the smear attacks vicious.
Paul is playing the game choosing his fights. He voted for Kerry and Hagel. This show causes people to forget what he did before (great politics).
My first choice for someone is someone who isn’t subservient to the insiders, Sarah Palin.
I speak as a WWII vet with overseas service. I believe Paul’s comments as to the whole world being a ‘battlefield’ is an apt analogy/possibility in this situation of bringing battlefield arms now being used around the world to bear on citizens of the USA in the USA. Obama’s enablers have no qualms about bringing the battle to USA citizens who Obama and his enablers would see the USA being in the ‘New World Order’.
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.