Excellent Post!I wrote an article yesterday covering the comments made by Kentucky Senator Rand Paul on Monday, when he shockingly said he supported the use of drones to kill Americans on American soil without a trial. This, of course, is a complete contradiction from his 13 hour filibuster in March where he spoke out against the “vague wording,” as he called it, of the Obama administration’s policies on using drones.
It didn’t take long before Libertarians were out in force to defend Paul.
I was accused of “twisting his words,” even when I used exact quotes and linked the video where he made the comments.
I was accused of “distorting the truth,” when Senator Paul clearly states that he would support the use of a drone to kill an armed robber as they walked out of a liquor store with $50.
So, how in the hell can I be “twisting his words” or “distorting the truth” when quoting comments as specific as those? When did directly quoting someone, using the same context for which they were speaking, become a distortion of the truth?
It was ridiculous.
And then comes the response from Paul regarding the backlash his comments had received:
“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 may only be considered in extraordinary, lethal situations where there is an ongoing, imminent threat.”
Excuse me? Are you kidding?
Here are his exact words from Monday:
“Here’s the distinction: I have never argued against any technology being used when you have an imminent threat, an act of crime going on. If someone comes out of a liquor store with a weapon and $50 in cash, I don’t care if a drone kills him or a policeman kills him.”
Am I missing something? When did someone committing an armed robbery of a liquor store, taking $50 in cash, become “an extraordinary lethal situation where there is an ongoing, imminent threat?”
Besides, during his ridiculous filibuster he cited the vague language used by Attorney General Eric Holder in response to Paul’s inquiries about President Obama’s possible use of drones on Americans.
In fact these are the exact words from the letter Eric Holder sent which Senator Paul took exception with:
“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.”
And what was Paul’s response in March to this letter?
“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.”
The Libertarian Denial: The Truth About Rand Paul and Drones
Posted in the Minneapolis Forum
Saint Paul, MN
#2 Apr 24, 2013
#3 Apr 24, 2013
#4 Apr 25, 2013
Ho hum. What else is new.
Add your comments below
|Global warming 'undeniable,' scientists say (Jul '10)||8 hr||harmonious||33,096|
|Hillary clinton "businesses dont create jobs"||10 hr||Liberal||20|
|Marcus, grow some balls...||13 hr||God||1|
|America Deserves Hillary Clinton||16 hr||Ebola Hussane Obama||1|
|The Liberal Ebola Nurse||16 hr||Ebola Hussane Obama||1|
|Why Help The Africans?||16 hr||Ebola Hussane Obama||1|
|Ebola Health Care Workers Are Pathetic||17 hr||Ebola Hussane Obama||1|
Find what you want!
Search Minneapolis Forum Now