Rand Paul responds to outcry: I never said drones should never be used to kill U.S. citizens on American soil

posted at 11:21 am on April 24, 2013 by Allahpundit

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.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Always surprises me when true believers discover that politicians are…politicians.

AYNBLAND on April 24, 2013 at 11:25 AM

It’s not complicated, Paul said if someone is a clear and present danger running around loose with weapons and explosives, drone away.

He said that from the very beginning.

commodore on April 24, 2013 at 11:25 AM

fraud.

sesquipedalian on April 24, 2013 at 11:26 AM

As a huge Rand supporter, it was a mistake on his part to say droning the bombers was okeydokey.

Rand blinked, because like most when the go to D.C, they get caught up in the “who knows what” game, so he hedged to pro-drone because he’s been hearing the noise about a dozen agents, the AQ Canada plot, etc… and he was worried he was going to look like Kucinich if the circle widened.

While it’s true he didn’t say “never”, his barometer certainly wasn’t low enough to include two dudes with pipebombs. That slippery slope leads you down to droning a guy with molotovs.

Disappointing.

budfox on April 24, 2013 at 11:30 AM

It’s not complicated, Paul said if someone is a clear and present danger running around loose with weapons and explosives, drone away.

He said that from the very beginning.

I’d have no problem with that, appropriate time, place and target.

It’s only when you consider what this admin, or any other potentially trigger happy government agency might deem an appropriate target that gives one pause.

hawkeye54 on April 24, 2013 at 11:30 AM

Rand Paul has given up on principles, and is now trying to impress personalities who might help get him elected to higher office.

Personalities over principles…

We’ve seen a lot of this over the post couple decades.

Like Rubio, Paul is being shunted to the side…and, like Rubio, through nobody’s fault but his own.

coldwarrior on April 24, 2013 at 11:31 AM

And, one filibuster doth not a leader make.

coldwarrior on April 24, 2013 at 11:31 AM

I dont see how this is a big deal. At all. But Im sure this means Paul will be branded a flip flopper now by conservatives and be taken off the list for 2016 candidates.

Jack_Burton on April 24, 2013 at 11:31 AM

Yeah drones, performing ISR. Not all are armed ya know.

jake49 on April 24, 2013 at 11:32 AM

It’s not complicated, Paul said if someone is a clear and present danger running around loose with weapons and explosives, drone away.

He said that from the very beginning.

commodore on April 24, 2013 at 11:25 AM

If that’s what he believes, fine. I’m right there with him. But if his support for drone strikes on Americans is more liberal than that, then he’s lost my vote.

Doughboy on April 24, 2013 at 11:32 AM

There were reports that these bombers testing out their bombs in the countryside. I wouldn’t have minded a drone ending them at that spot. Out of the city. But of course the FBI was ignoring them, so…..

portlandon on April 24, 2013 at 11:32 AM

Does this mean no more in depth coverage of “car chases” from the highways of California?

Cindy Munford on April 24, 2013 at 11:33 AM

Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.

Benjamin Franklin

kingsjester on April 24, 2013 at 11:34 AM

fraud.

sesquipedalian on April 24, 2013 at 11:26 AM

there are forms of violence i actually condone.

sesquipedalian on December 11, 2012 at 4:48 PM

portlandon on April 24, 2013 at 11:34 AM

Ugh, the GOP’s version of Barky, that’s what Paul is veering toward unless he gets his mind right.

Bishop on April 24, 2013 at 11:34 AM

Stop digging that hole Rand.

Happy Nomad on April 24, 2013 at 11:37 AM

Does this mean no more in depth coverage of “car chases” from the highways of California?

Cindy Munford on April 24, 2013 at 11:33 AM

If it can save just one unsuspectining innocent driver, I look forward in breathless anticipation of a future day when mini-phasers mounted on drones set to “vaporize” can immediately eliminate the need for such prolonged and dangerous chases.

“zap” and poof!!

hawkeye54 on April 24, 2013 at 11:44 AM

It’s not complicated, Paul said if someone is a clear and present danger running around loose with weapons and explosives, drone away.

He said that from the very beginning.

commodore on April 24, 2013 at 11:25 AM

No, he really didn’t. Did you even read his quotes above? He categorically ruled out any use of drones against American citizens on American soil for any reason without “being found guilty by a court.” He has completely flip-flopped on his position and is now trying desperately to cover it.

Shump on April 24, 2013 at 11:44 AM

All those applying for citizenship, and receiving it should have a clause in their pathway to citizenship.

“If at anytime you commit a terrorist act against the United States after having taken this oath, your citizenship is revoked from the moment the terrorist act is committed.”

portlandon on April 24, 2013 at 11:44 AM

A big nothing-burger.

Some of you here are just plain insufferable.

Common Sense Floridian on April 24, 2013 at 11:44 AM

Older brother was not a US citizen, thus not falling under one of Sen. Paul’s strictures. Younger brother had just become a citizen but had participated in a terror attack. In the car chase, besides the murdered MIT police officer, 15 other officers were taken to the hospital, one in critical condition, several in severe condition. The brothers used pipe bombs and one pressure cooker bomb. Once the older brother was down, the younger brother used the SUV as a weapon. Thus the question becomes, do we never use an armed drone against a US citizen involved is such activity and attempt to take that person only with terrestrially fixed assets, including police and, perhaps, national guard, or do we use all assets? To all, what is the appropriate line?

A.S.R. on April 24, 2013 at 11:47 AM

Let’s face it, politicians will be dictating who gets the death penalty and for what. Just like Banghazi, they can kill first, then explain later by creating any situation they want with an accommodating media. Scary stuff.

lea on April 24, 2013 at 11:50 AM

hawkeye54 on April 24, 2013 at 11:44 AM

If only we had had them during O.J.!

Cindy Munford on April 24, 2013 at 11:50 AM

Obviously Senator Paul meant the robber exiting the store was brandishing a weapon and an immediate threat to the public. A police officer can’t shoot an unarmed perpetrator under any circumstance – much less with a drone. Sheesh.

Panther on April 24, 2013 at 11:51 AM

Rand Paul, beginning to look like his father was the high point of the family gene pool.

astonerii on April 24, 2013 at 11:54 AM

Not a fan of this new, and it is new, position on domestic use of drones.

myrenovations on April 24, 2013 at 11:55 AM

Good thing Elvis has been cleared of the ricin attacks before the drones got him.

fourdeucer on April 24, 2013 at 11:57 AM

I think, that drone use to kill Americans on US soil, should be both limited to the “immediate threat”, and must be defensible in court if (when) challenged to do so.

And it must be challenged, and the users must be forced to defend that use, every time.

That makes it little different than a police sniper shooting without verbal warning, and that is legal under certain narrow (not the Randy Weaver case) circumstances.

jhnone on April 24, 2013 at 11:58 AM

Ot:
Just heard that tingles will be covering the library dedication tomorrow

How many times will he compare the awesomeness of dsar leader vs that right wing nut W

cmsinaz on April 24, 2013 at 12:00 PM

Thus the question becomes, do we never use an armed drone against a US citizen involved is such activity and attempt to take that person only with terrestrially fixed assets, including police and, perhaps, national guard, or do we use all assets? To all, what is the appropriate line?

A.S.R. on April 24, 2013 at 11:47 AM

For me, it’s an easy answer. No, we don’t ever use an armed drone against a US citizen. Period.

Look at this current case. Even with everything that happened, the police were ultimately able to take him alive. He will have his day in court, and be afforded all the due process rights guaranteed to American citizens. Had drones been available and authorized, he would most likely have simply been killed.

I don’t personally trust our government with that level of power.

Shump on April 24, 2013 at 12:01 PM

Hahahahaahahah!! Haahahahhhahahahahahaha! Ahahaahhahahaha!!!

lester on April 24, 2013 at 12:02 PM

What is wrong with this guy?

Evidently the national attention has either messed with Sen, Paul’s head (EGO)….or revealed some very troubling philosophical tendencies?

Kinda reminds me of the time Ross Perot gave an interview years ago (Before his run for the presidency) revealing his tyrant fantasies about fencing in West Dallas cause it was a highcrime latino ghetto or something…

Criminals can’t surrender to a Drone.

workingclass artist on April 24, 2013 at 12:03 PM

Drones are nothing but one more tool that the military uses. I didn’t like the fact that the state, local and some weird feral government agencies brought all sorts of military hardware and soldiers out onto the streets during the “chase”. That was un-Constitutional – not to mention the fact that it was a total and unmitigated failure. With hundreds of military-prepared, clad and armed soldiers on US streets, one 19 year old d!ckhead who was wounded still managed to elude them on foot. I can’t believe that the authorities would have done any better with drones flying all over … but I’m sure some armed drones would have taken out a few innocent people in the whole process.

I’d rather have an armed populace than soldiers on the streets to stop two morons. In Israel, the minute a terrorist exposes himself on the street he’s gunned down by someone with a gun (usually a civilian, though teenagers with automatics – REAL automatics – are all over the place as they are required to carry them while they are doing their army service). Better to have the guy with the boat armed and ready to shoot Joker when he finds him in his boat than to be calling for a militarization of US streets every time some idiot blows something up and the inept and incompetent police and feral government soldiers can’t stop him or find him.

And the fact that the police/soldiers just opened up on the boat when they were finally told where Joker was … ridiculous. It all reminded me of the New York cops who managed to shoot 8 people while they were trying to get one perp.

Cops don’t need drones. THey have helicopters that ought to be able to follow SUVs and bleeding terrorists. And we don’t need feral government soldiers coming out in tanks on American streets to stop two yahoos who could have been taken out by anyone near with a gun or rifle. And someone needs to teach the cops how to flank a couple of shooters.

How the cops were handcuffing Tamerlan and then Joker managed to run over him and get away is something that I will never understand. I wouold never want such an inept force to be flying armed drones, shooting at whatever they want. And I don’t want “Homeland Security” and their tanks to ever show up anywhere, again. I don’t want an un-Constitutional domestic security force as well funded as the military. That’s an Indonesian thing, not an American one.

ThePrimordialOrderedPair on April 24, 2013 at 12:03 PM

Actually, the way I understood Senator Paul’s original and subsequent comments on this matter were just as he describes here (and consistent); I thought the cries of “hypocrite” were unfounded because he was specific in terms of the conditions with respect to armed drones.

dpduq on April 24, 2013 at 12:06 PM

I think, that drone use to kill Americans on US soil, should be both limited to the “immediate threat”, and must be defensible in court if (when) challenged to do so.

And it must be challenged, and the users must be forced to defend that use, every time.

That makes it little different than a police sniper shooting without verbal warning, and that is legal under certain narrow (not the Randy Weaver case) circumstances.

jhnone on April 24, 2013 at 11:58 AM

Drones use explosives and there is always collateral damage.

Generally in most cases an LEO sharpshooter kills the suspect…cause they are sharpshooters.

workingclass artist on April 24, 2013 at 12:07 PM

For me, it’s an easy answer. No, we don’t ever use an armed drone against a US citizen. Period.
Shump on April 24, 2013 at 12:01 PM

Totally concur.

fourdeucer on April 24, 2013 at 12:07 PM

For me, it’s an easy answer. No, we don’t ever use an armed drone against a US citizen. Period.

Yup, we shouldn’t, but certain people in power seem to disagree with that position, and want a great deal of flexibility in the matter.

hawkeye54 on April 24, 2013 at 12:12 PM

It’s not complicated, Paul said if someone is a clear and present danger running around loose with weapons and explosives, drone away.

He said that from the very beginning.

commodore on April 24, 2013 at 11:25 AM

No, he really didn’t. Did you even read his quotes above? He categorically ruled out any use of drones against American citizens on American soil for any reason without “being found guilty by a court.” He has completely flip-flopped on his position and is now trying desperately to cover it.

Shump on April 24, 2013 at 11:44 AM

YEP!

Sen. Rand Paul stepped on his d*ck.

Meanwhile…Daddy is loading his new collegiate enterprise education board with 911 truthers & anti-semites…

workingclass artist on April 24, 2013 at 12:12 PM

He is for illegal immigration and amnesty too. To Hades with him.

p.s. sesqui recovered from all that “glee”.

Schadenfreude on April 24, 2013 at 12:26 PM

Buy lottery tickets. I agree with sesqui and lester.

Schadenfreude on April 24, 2013 at 12:28 PM

Wrong word use… As a politician you’d think he’d know better…

“I’ve always supported the use of Drones to defend America” would have been a better line. (If that’s what he actually meant … But probably doesn’t)

Drone use to stop a high crime IN ACTION is one thing and perfectly defensible.

Drone use for petty crimes or daily surveillance is out of the question.

(Although somewhere in there is the use of drones over police helicopters for chases which I think would make sense, especially economically, but thats a slippery slope.)

Skywise on April 24, 2013 at 12:33 PM

fraud.

sesquipedalian on April 24, 2013 at 11:26 AM

Thread is about Rand Paul, so you can stop talking about yourself.

On Topic:

Yes he’s wrong in that a drone (or other liberal) should be armed and pull the trigger on a suspected American. We need to keep due process intact. If there’s an officer on the ground who has to shoot a target because he is a threat, that’s different than having drones flying around American cities and towns ready to drop their payload on a ‘suspect’.

The_Livewire on April 24, 2013 at 12:37 PM

And the fact that the police/soldiers just opened up on the boat when they were finally told where Joker was … ridiculous. It all reminded me of the New York cops who managed to shoot 8 people while they were trying to get one perp.

ThePrimordialOrderedPair on April 24, 2013 at 12:03 PM

I agree with everything you posted there, as for the police opening up on the boat, my understanding is that they were flash bangs, at least this is what I heard on the chatter of the Boston police scanner that I was listening to that night.

jimver on April 24, 2013 at 12:42 PM

If we have Americans on American soil that are so bad that we want them dead & know where they are to the point where we have been tracking them & where we can put an armed drone overhead then we are more than capable of CAPTURING them!

I have no problem putting terrorists to death (unlike this President, who is friends with 1 terrorist – Bill Ayers – and just stepped in to try to keep the Boston terrorist off of death row), I have a problem with the same govt – who armed Mexican Drug Cartels, Muslim Brotherhood, & abandoned Ambassador Stevens/2 SEALs to die in Benghazi then lied about it having the power – to simply KILL an American citizen and then claim ‘they were bad & needed killing’.

A man charged with trying to Kill Obama by sending him risin was just released – DIDN’T DO IT! I could see Obama labeling this guy a terrorist/threat & having him killed by drone strike had he the power to do so….before they found out he was framed….THAT potential to happen scares me.

The fact that Liberals had no problem putting Timmy Mcveigh to death for terrorism (which he deserved) yet refused to do the same with professor & Hollywood movie ‘darling’ Bill Ayers & how Obama stepped in to assist the Boston Bomber is alarming. What, death is good a justifiable punishment as long as their agenda/political affiliation is ‘Liberal’ or ‘Islamic Extremist’?

300+ died as a result of Fast & Furious — no one in givt responsible was held accountable. Americans were abandoned/died in Benghazi & no one responsible was punished or held accountable – as Obama PROMISED would happen. There are definite cases that expose ‘bias’ & ‘partisanship’ directly inpacting justice & accountability, & no one wielding those 2 should have the authrity/ability to kill Americans on American soil via a drone strike!

Again, if you know who they are, have been tracking them, are watching them, & have the time to get a drone overhead you have had more than enough time & opportunity to CAPTURE them!

easyt65 on April 24, 2013 at 12:50 PM

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.

Huh? I don’t quite follow. How is this hard to reconcile?

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.

Presumably in the liquor store case, the point is that neither the police nor the drone are acceptable in the liquor store case, not that both are.

RINO in Name Only on April 24, 2013 at 12:57 PM

I think the anti Paul rhetoric is just what it appears to be; an attempt to discredit a conservative. Ted Cruz will be next.

If law enforcement was flying a helicopter over the shoot out with police Friday night in Boston, they could have taken an overhead rifle shot at the suspects, you know the two who were shooting and throwing bombs at police.

What I take from what Rand Paul said is that an unmanned drone could have daccomplished the same task. “Unmanned” actually meaning that someone was controlling the drone remotely.

This notion that Rand Paul supports drones flying willy nilly over a city and shooting at people running from a store, who may or may not have have stolen $50.00, is crazy.

I suspect two things happened: 1) Rand Paul didn’t phrase his answer very well, living loopholes for idiots to fill or 2) his answer was taken out of context.

Amjean on April 24, 2013 at 1:06 PM

coldwarrior on April 24, 2013 at 11:31 AM

Bishop on April 24, 2013 at 11:34 AM

Yup. But it makes me miserable to see it again.

Like Lincoln suspending the writ of habeas corpus.

Sad.

IlikedAUH2O on April 24, 2013 at 1:12 PM

These are the risks of grandstanding and seeking out that spotlight.

ddrintn on April 24, 2013 at 1:17 PM

I think the anti Paul rhetoric is just what it appears to be; an attempt to discredit a conservative.

Amjean on April 24, 2013 at 1:06 PM

Well, Rand Paul’s own statements have a little to do with it too.

ddrintn on April 24, 2013 at 1:19 PM

How the cops were handcuffing Tamerlan and then Joker managed to run over him and get away is something that I will never understand. I would never want such an inept force to be flying armed drones, shooting at whatever they want. And I don’t want “Homeland Security” and their tanks to ever show up anywhere, again. I don’t want an un-Constitutional domestic security force as well funded as the military. That’s an Indonesian thing, not an American one.

ThePrimordialOrderedPair on April 24, 2013 at 12:03 PM

This might interest you: Women Shot During Dorner Manhunt to Receive $4.2 Million from L.A.

Los Angeles Times carriers Margie Carranza, 47 and her mother, Emma Hernandez, 71, were hurt when their truck came under fire from LAPD officers in Torrance on Feb. 7.

slickwillie2001 on April 24, 2013 at 1:22 PM

Very disappointing, Rand Paul. You’ve been very squishy on illegal immigration, too, not a lot of help on that front yet.

As with anything in the pit of corruption, follow the money. The drone industry, like those who exploit illegal immigration, have a lot of lobbyists in Washington DC.

Obviously Senator Paul meant the robber exiting the store was brandishing a weapon and an immediate threat to the public.

Panther on April 24, 2013 at 11:51 AM

Well if that’s the standard then wouldn’t it be applicable to perhaps hundreds of crimes around the country each year? Do we really want hundreds of Hellfire missiles fired from Drones on American criminals every year?

FloatingRock on April 24, 2013 at 1:37 PM

Imagine how quickly Janet Reno could have wrapped up Waco if the BATF had been equipped with Hellfire-drones back then!

slickwillie2001 on April 24, 2013 at 1:45 PM

Rand Paul, beginning to look like his father was the high point of the family gene pool.

astonerii on April 24, 2013 at 11:54 AM

I take no joy in this but I told you so. This guy can go off the rails anytime

KBird on April 24, 2013 at 2:03 PM

Rand Paul, beginning to look like his father was the high point of the family gene pool.

astonerii on April 24, 2013 at 11:54 AM

As opposed to who, exactly? The cowboy president who lost his pea-pickin’ mind after 2004? Or maybe McLame aka Bush Lite, who was badly outperformed by Tee-Hee Deathpanels, who had ZERO name recognition before the elections? Getalife.

Imagine how quickly Janet Reno could have wrapped up Waco if the BATF had been equipped with Hellfire-drones back then!

slickwillie2001 on April 24, 2013 at 1:45 PM

Not nearly as much as you think. They put in calls for heavy backup the minute the compound resisted the goon squads’ infantry charge. Everything leading up to that was psy-ops and publicity propaganda.

If that bloody-handed harlot had given the order, the tanks would have been rumbling in a few days. And drones or tanks, they were equally defenseless.

MelonCollie on April 24, 2013 at 2:49 PM

Rand Paul is inexperienced and I suppose misspoke

Definitely not ready to run for higher office. I hope he knows this, or his advisers will tell him.

Future, but not 2016.

Redford on April 24, 2013 at 3:13 PM

I’m glad I didn’t send money.

claudius on April 24, 2013 at 3:15 PM

MelonCollie on April 24, 2013 at 2:49 PM

Is gther anything that Rand Paul could say that you wouldn’t f*cking defend or rationalize away somehow with some obsessive dig or other at Palin, Bush or some other figure from the Paulbot Demonolgy Handbook?

ddrintn on April 24, 2013 at 3:40 PM

* Is THERE anything

ddrintn on April 24, 2013 at 3:40 PM

I take no joy in this but I told you so. This guy can go off the rails anytime

KBird on April 24, 2013 at 2:03 PM

I never jumped onto his train. I always feared he would go full bird progressive or nut ball libertarian. No matter how much training in acting you have, you can never keep the facade intact forever.

astonerii on April 24, 2013 at 4:14 PM

Don’t go Full Rubio. You never go full Rubio.

tom daschle concerned on April 24, 2013 at 4:18 PM

Is gther anything that Rand Paul could say that you wouldn’t f*cking defend or rationalize away somehow with some obsessive dig or other at Palin, Bush or some other figure from the Paulbot Demonolgy Handbook?

ddrintn on April 24, 2013 at 3:40 PM

First of all, you can spell like you’re an adult and not a whelp who got held back in grade school.

Secondly, I note you never ask this about the palinbots like Jenfidel (who appears to be back under another username), or the McLame supporters, or the Romney-is-oh-so-conservative crowd. Once AGAIN for your benefit (small as it may be), Rand is not the next Reagan but he IS the last serious candidate who hasn’t gone RINO on us – and if he follows the 2016 elections won’t mean a thing.

Thirdly, I didn’t even address anything you were saying. astonerii and slickwillie2001 can defend themselves quite well, the former especially.

MelonCollie on April 24, 2013 at 7:27 PM

Nuance

That is what life is. Absolutists are flawed; they are zealots. The US Constitution does not enunciate all that it encompasses; yet we all rise up to defend it, the best we can. Rand Paul cannot spell out all situations for which he would and would not support drone (armed and unarmed) use.

Common Sense and Restraint is the cypher for the US Constitution, and I believe that is where Mr. Paul resides as well. Stop falling for dichotomies. We all have choices greater than 2.

John Kettlewell on April 25, 2013 at 6:39 AM

First of all, you can spell like you’re an adult and not a whelp who got held back in grade school.

Yeah, I can. Picking on typos is a sign of your own inadequacies.

Secondly, I note you never ask this about the palinbots like Jenfidel (who appears to be back under another username), or the McLame supporters, or the Romney-is-oh-so-conservative crowd. Once AGAIN for your benefit (small as it may be), Rand is not the next Reagan but he IS the last serious candidate who hasn’t gone RINO on us – and if he follows the 2016 elections won’t mean a thing.

MelonCollie on April 24, 2013 at 7:27 PM

Firstly, I don’t know Jenfidel and certainly don’t know if he/she/it is here under another username or not. Secondly, we alleged “Palinbots” have often criticized various Palin statements and actions. Meanwhile, point out for me any occasion where you’ve done nothing but come to the defense with your automatic rationalizations of whatever Paul and Son say and do. Pimping for that Holy House of Paul is your primary function here, and the telling thing is you usually can’t do much in that regard without resorting to your usual infantile “Miss Teehee Deathpanels Quitter” shtick.

ddrintn on April 25, 2013 at 8:49 AM

Rand is not the next Reagan but he IS the last serious candidate who hasn’t gone RINO on us – and if he follows the 2016 elections won’t mean a thing.

MelonCollie on April 24, 2013 at 7:27 PM

LOL. “Rand is our only hope!!!!!! Save us, SuperPaul!!!!” And you sit there and blather about “Palin cultists”.

ddrintn on April 25, 2013 at 9:19 AM

Might as well add one more to try to get this blazing thread up to 70 comments or so.

ddrintn on April 25, 2013 at 9:21 AM

70!!!! There we go.

ddrintn on April 25, 2013 at 9:41 AM

People get so wound up over the means, as if the use of a drone, or a single bullet makes any difference at all to the issue.

Paul made a big deal of droning a citizen in a US cafe. What about some ricin in his latte? Is that not a problem?

Holder and his thugs want the right to do anything at all to anyone anywhere. That was Paul’s filibuster success – it drew out the poison that is in the administrations intentions. He exposed the mob.

But the bigger issue is first, that assassination, by any means, is not a viable official policy of civilized government.

Second, the launching of military force in a foreign country, without a declaration of war, is bad foreign policy (because you have no objection to other countries doing that to you). What if Pakistan says “we organized Boston in response to your repeated violations of our sovereignty”. We have no answer.

Third, the use of the military against US citizens on US soil has big legal issues. What exactly is “due process”, if any minute a government bomb can rip through your ceiling or a SWAT team can bust through your door.

You may say that’s OK as long as they get “the bad guy”. What if “the bad guy” is you?

virgo on April 25, 2013 at 11:08 AM

LOL. “Rand is our only hope!!!!!! Save us, SuperPaul!!!!” And you sit there and blather about “Palin cultists”.

ddrintn on April 25, 2013 at 9:19 AM

More projecting from the resident Palinbot who needs their keyboard broken.

MelonCollie on May 6, 2013 at 10:05 PM