Rand Paul thinks its okay to kill citizens on American soil with drones, From His Lips

The more I see of Rand the more I see a difference between a politician and a statesman(his father), and it's painful to watch.

Despite all that I still think he is the best the GOP has for 2016. Better than Jeb at least.

Would you rather have Bush type values or Paul family values in Washington ?

Originally posted by Blue_Jay33


Would you rather have Bush type values or Paul family values in Washington ?

By "Paul family values"...which one? The one who enthusiastically endorsed Mitt Romney? Or the one that refused to? The one that is for Drone Strikes on American Soil or the one against drone strikes anywhere?

The list goes on if you research...Rand and Ron are different men.

rand is a puppet yo, proof is out there...
what tipped me off was when he voted for romney, the bilderberg puppet...
lol
what a shill

Personally, I was stunned by his admission. It was disappointing to me that he swerves and meanders a bit more than his steadfast father. Now, I am completely on the fence on where I am going to lean in the future. We need a third party so desperately.

What they've been trying to do is distinguish terrorists from the average person or US citizen. And its likely that they wanted to avoid having to do that in the first place because apparently, a terrorist could possibly be anyone.

Until the US lawmakers and congress ect, along with the people decide exactly what a terrorist is TOGETHER, you're going to see # like this and major eff ups in law enforcement and government decision making. By the way .gub, we already have writing in place for terroristic people, you know, citizens who take it apon themselves to attack fellow americans in manners of war, Its called TREASON.

We also have writing in place for foreigners who would attack our homeland, theyre called FOREIGN ENEMIES. This is why the authors of the conny list enemies both FOREIGN and DOMESTIC and because we understand that some people are wackos, we also have developed this thing called the PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE and the OATH OF OFFICE and words that should not be taken lightly like US CITIZEN.

And while folks look at that and determine what to think of it or ridicule me for saying it, maybe its a good idea that they stop educating the god damn world and educate CITIZENS here as a focus and priority instead of importing people who would only choose to cause HARM.

The maybe, just maybe, people like Mr. Paul, aka REPRESENTATIVE(s) OF THE PEOPLE wouldn't have to pull their own feet out of their mouths when they do interviews about terrorism.

I just hope that Ron Paul can still have some control over his son like Bush Sr. on his son.

He clarified his comment shortly after. randpaulflix.com...

Originally posted by Indigo5
What? So it is Ok to use armed drones on Americans on American soil...as long as the alternative might place and officer at risk?

WTF...That aint a slippery slope is it?

Yes it is, but my point is that he did not flip flop. His filibuster was on drone surveillance and target assassinations. If the police are already allowed to use deadly force (in a shoot out they would be) then why not use a drone with a tranquilizer or tazer to take down the suspect.

Originally posted by Nephalim
What they've been trying to do is distinguish terrorists from the average person or US citizen. And its likely that they wanted to avoid having to do that in the first place because apparently, a terrorist could possibly be anyone.

Until the US lawmakers and congress ect, along with the people decide exactly what a terrorist is TOGETHER, you're going to see # like this and major eff ups in law enforcement and government decision making.

No...even when the terrorists are home grown on American soil, armed drones are not OK.

Even the legal opinion that the Obama Administration solicited specifies this.

The distinction is "extra-judicial"....NOT who is a terrorist.

Extra-Judicial essentially means outside the bounds of US Laws and Law Enforcement agents.

In Somalia...they do not, nor are they obligated to recognize US Laws...EX: the government of Somalia does not enforce US Laws...nor are they obligated to recognize warrants, indictments, evidence, laws etc of the USA any more than we are obligated to apply Somalian law here...So they have no obligation to arrest a known terrorist, nor allow the USA to do the same on thier soil. ..."Extra Judicial"

So when the USA has very strong evidence to believe that someone has killed Americans, co-ordinated terrorist attacks or is in the process of doing so...and they are in a leadership position with the capability of executing the plan...and they are "Extra-Judicial"...outside the reach of US Law Enforcement and our laws...then an armed drone strike is considered.

In the USA...On US SOIL...that is not "Extra Judicial"...it is the precise opposite...and whether someone is suspected of being a terrorist, robber, serial killer etc. is meaningless....They are on US Soil, subject to US Laws and US Law Enforcement agencies...they can be apprehended and tried within the US Justice system. Absent "Extra-Judicial" there is no warranting armed drones...even Drone proponents strongly believe this.

What Rand suggests is even opposed by the Obama administration and thier legal team as outlined in the Memo that was leaked.

"Extra-Judicial" is a neccessary condition before even considering an armed drone strike.

reply to post by Indigo5


Indigo my point is the confusion caused by a possible lack of communication between US citizens and their reps and or government. The average person who doesnt understand all that legalize sees this crap and freaks out. I think this thread is evidence of that. All people saw in that video was a man who frequently speaks for the freedoms and liberties of american people, appear to change his position after a domestic attack. Then he had to clarify. Correct?

When they put in writing that theyre after terrorists, and start to look for ways to do so, and the american people only hear "The US government can drone americans" and dont necessarily understand the entire scenario in which this could or could not be done, well you can quite easily see how people would be upset and very easily misunderstand what is actually, or might possibly be there in writing. In other words, get the damn facts out so people who are watching and catching tidbits of info arent like holy # wtf did we do? and when the hell did it become ok to drone americans?

Make more sense?

reply to post by Nephalim


Agreed on thier being a good amount of confusion.

Right now the strict legal parameters and policy for armed drone strikes are;

(1) Target must be enemy combatant or known terrorist leader with sufficient evidence that they have killed or are actively planning to kill American citizens.

AND

(2) Extra-judicial...not on American Soil, outside the reach of US law enforcement officials and justice system or an active known "combat zone"...strict definition...not American soil unless a mass invasion has occured and it has been declared the same by congress.

Further...on the "extra-judicial" front...capture must present a significant risk to US forces. Othersie if the target is in a friendly nation where US forces or law enforcement can operate to apprehend someone without significant risk, then that must be the first course of action.

I don't explain those things to disagree with you...but to clarify for other readers.

The idea of Drone strikes on US Soil for any reason is not acceptable...not even to the administration...as outlined by thier own legal docs they have put together.

The fact that Rand Paul does not see the need for the above parameters says a great deal about his real views IMO.

Under current law and policy the only scenario where armed drones would be legal on US soil, is if the USA became an active combat zone as designated by congress and US Law Enforcement abdicated authority to the military etc. Essentially a "red dawn" scenario"....not a guy robbing a liquer store.