Rand endorses recent Pakistan drone strikes against Americans

[65fastback2+2]

If you think this is a change in Randal's position then you obviously never listened to a thing he said.

I listen to everything he says...ask my wife how many rand videos and speeches she has to hear weekly.

I would say you havent been listening to what Paul said...that we have to be a champion of ALL the bill of rights...that AMERICANS have a right to a speedy trial, a trial by jury and they have a right to be charged with a crime under a warrant.

All of this goes directly against an American under a terrorists guise being assassinated and "Oopsy" 2 innocents were killed as well (1 being an American).

That is NOT being a champion of the bill of rights. Furthermore, it feels more like martial law.

 

[presence]

I'm not that familiar with the case, but what is so deplorable about killing people that are holding other Americans hostage?

The president has stated he was bombing "an AQ affiliated facility". The hostages at the location were not expected. So the target was not individuals holding Americans hostage at all; it was just another AQ drone strike... gone bad.

 

[wizardwatson]

This whole strategy is obviously going way over your head.

I like Ron Paul more than any politician or ex-politician, but he isn't going to win the Presidency. Very sad, but true. THIS is how Rand wins.

The person they killed was holding innocent American hostages. Not soldiers, aid workers. Ya, there is a lot of background that could be told about our foreign policy and how that situation all came to be, that was Ron's job. He woke up as many people as he could.

Now it's Rand's turn to take the White House and actually push us in a better direction.

Are you ready to ride the wave or are you just going to get in the way?

Such deja vu I'm getting from all this. Every time someone criticizes this Washington-based strategy there's this fascist militant element/mindset that crops up around here that wants to beat the dissenters into submission. WHICH IS EXACTLY WHAT HAPPENED IN RP 2008 when the grass roots got criticized for basically being too "ghetto" in their campaigning.

Don't use non-official signs.
Don't talk about 9/11.
Don't talk about basically anything you read on infowars.

Now with Rand,

Don't talk about libertarian ideas.
Don't be too anti-war.
Play the game, use subterfuge, ends justify the means.

After 8 years everyone is still lazy and idolatrous about these elections.

The REAL strategy that would've made a difference HAS BEEN ABANDONED. We were supposed to be getting local people elected. We were supposed to develop CFL. The social/grassroots tools we needed were barely developed and certainly never used. Who are the contacts for CFL or equivalent in your area? When is the next meeting, is anyone in your state even active? None of these things were developed by anyone very seriously or for very long. There are exceptions of course but those people who did try are some of the most jaded. And those who barely did anything seem to be the ones who feel comfortable going all Nazi when it comes to defending our new savior Rand Paul (not directing at you danno).

I don't even care that it's all failed. It's fine. It didn't really surprise me. We're all lazy. Much easier to blabber and imagine things and have a strategy that only requires us to get out of our house a few times every couple years to vote than to actually do real work. I get it. But I do get annoyed when the dissenters are ridiculed and attacked as if Rand is some sure thing. He's most definitely not. RAND COULD GET ELECTED AND WE COULD STILL LOSE. And as he keeps missing opportunities to speak the truth in exchange for political gain he loses a little each time.

I'm glad some of you are all proud of your candidate. But believe me you want the dissenters around. Keep up this browbeating and you are going to lose even more supporters.

We've always been in danger of losing this battle. It's always been a long shot. But this trend that we keep following is going to make us lose the message as well. And Ron put the message before the election. And I feel a lot of people are willing to abandon that mindset.

 

[dannno]

The president has stated he was bombing "an AQ affiliated facility". The hostages at the location were not expected. So the target was not individuals holding Americans hostage at all; it was just another AQ drone strike... gone bad.

Of course the hostages at the location were not expected, why would they bomb hostages?

But the fact that he was there helping hold Americans hostage means he was in combat, you can't expect a trial if you are holding innocent people hostage.

If he was holed up in some cave with a bunch of extremists who were not engaged in combat, I would agree he deserves a trial.

Now, the situation becomes complicated only because we know the back story and that we have essentially created this backdrop over there to begin with and need to take a much different path - but ultimately if somebody is holding Americans hostage in a war zone, for the sake of argument in a defensive Constitutional war, you can't expect that they are going to get a trial.

 

[specsaregood]

//

 

[SilentBull]

Not surprised that the media is using this to attack him. "The anti-drone candidate..." Like he ever said he was against them. Freaking idiots. Too stupid to understand a more complex argument than "I am against" or "I am for".

 

[dannno]

Such deja vu I'm getting from all this. Every time someone criticizes this Washington-based strategy there's this fascist militant element/mindset that crops up around here that wants to beat the dissenters into submission. WHICH IS EXACTLY WHAT HAPPENED IN RP 2008 when the grass roots got criticized for basically being too "ghetto" in their campaigning.

Don't use non-official signs.
Don't talk about 9/11.
Don't talk about basically anything you read on infowars.

Now with Rand,

Don't talk about libertarian ideas.
Don't be too anti-war.
Play the game, use subterfuge, ends justify the means.

After 8 years everyone is still lazy and idolatrous about these elections.

The REAL strategy that would've made a difference HAS BEEN ABANDONED. We were supposed to be getting local people elected. We were supposed to develop CFL. The social/grassroots tools we needed were barely developed and certainly never used. Who are the contacts for CFL or equivalent in your area? When is the next meeting, is anyone in your state even active? None of these things were developed by anyone very seriously or for very long. There are exceptions of course but those people who did try are some of the most jaded. And those who barely did anything seem to be the ones who feel comfortable going all Nazi when it comes to defending our new savior Rand Paul (not directing at you danno).

I don't even care that it's all failed. It's fine. It didn't really surprise me. We're all lazy. Much easier to blabber and imagine things and have a strategy that only requires us to get out of our house a few times every couple years to vote than to actually do real work. I get it. But I do get annoyed when the dissenters are ridiculed and attacked as if Rand is some sure thing. He's most definitely not. RAND COULD GET ELECTED AND WE COULD STILL LOSE. And as he keeps missing opportunities to speak the truth in exchange for political gain he loses a little each time.

I'm glad some of you are all proud of your candidate. But believe me you want the dissenters around. Keep up this browbeating and you are going to lose even more supporters.

We've always been in danger of losing this battle. It's always been a long shot. But this trend that we keep following is going to make us lose the message as well. And Ron put the message before the election. And I feel a lot of people are willing to abandon that mindset.

I'm not asking you to support Rand, donate to his campaign or become a delegate. It would be awesome if you did, but you do whatever you feel comfortable doing. I'm saying you shouldn't attack him, denounce your support and ask others to do the same when he is the best candidate we have based on his rhetoric - and I would argue that he is going to perform at or nearly as well as his father would if he gets elected. That is my opinion.

You have to separate Rand from the movement, he isn't running on our platform- he is running FOR our platform.

I espouse the same anti-war ideals that I always have, I would march all the troops home tomorrow. But if Rand is going to get elected he can't do that, he may as well get up on Fox News and start speaking Swahili.

Do you want him to get elected or not? That is the question.

 

[SilentBull]

dang it...i might have to support cruz then if rand is gonna flip on something so major

Where is the flip?

 

[SilentBull]

Anyone who is claiming Rand flipped on this, please explain what his position was during the filibuster, because you clearly didn't understand his position before, you don't understand it now, and you clearly just don't understand shit.

 

[Brian4Liberty]

The person they killed was holding innocent American hostages.

You can't defend an action with knowledge obtained after the fact.

I'm not that familiar with the case, but what is so deplorable about killing people that are holding other Americans hostage?

They didn't know hostages were there. They have been quite clear that if they knew hostages were there, they would never bomb the site.

Of course the hostages at the location were not expected, why would they bomb hostages?

But the fact that he was there helping hold Americans hostage means he was in combat, you can't expect a trial if you are holding innocent people hostage.

Now that sounds familiar. Like every time the police kill somebody and say "hey look, there were drugs in the house, so he was a bad guy anyway and it's justified".

 

[65fastback2+2]

Anyone who is claiming Rand flipped on this, please explain what his position was during the filibuster, because you clearly didn't understand his position before, you don't understand it now, and you clearly just don't understand shit.

the answer you want is that we cant drone americans who have committed crimes here, but as long as they arent on american soil, we can drone them all we want.

 

[presence]

Of course the hostages at the location were not expected, why would they bomb hostages?

But the fact that he was there helping hold Americans hostage means he was in combat, you can't expect a trial if you are holding innocent people hostage.

If he was holed up in some cave with a bunch of extremists who were not engaged in combat, I would agree he deserves a trial.

Now, the situation becomes complicated only because we know the back story and that we have essentially created this backdrop over there to begin with and need to take a much different path - but ultimately if somebody is holding Americans hostage in a war zone, for the sake of argument in a defensive Constitutional war, you can't expect that they are going to get a trial.

how exactly "helping" do you have to actually be?

There has been nothing in the news stating that the president knew hostages were being held anywhere near this particular facility. It was just another "AQ affiliated" target.

If dude is holding a hostage and using him as a human shield... I have no problem with a sharp shooter putting a bullet through dudes skull....


but if dude is just chillin' at an "AQ affilliated facility" X and somewhere else in the province AQ is holding hostages at AQ facility Z....

dude at site X seems hardly "engaged in combat".

 

[Brian4Liberty]

the answer you want is that we cant drone americans who have committed crimes here, but as long as they arent on american soil, we can drone them all we want.

The point was that American citizens can not be arbitrarily droned anywhere without due process.

In this case, no Americans were targeted, therefore no change in position.

Edit: added more details that confirm no American targeting in these cases.

Officials said CIA drones launched a flurry of missiles at a guarded compound in the Shawal Valley, in Pakistan’s remote tribal belt, on Jan. 14 after hundreds of hours of aerial surveillance, as well as communications intercepts and other intelligence, had convinced officials that a senior al-Qaida figure and his aides were holed up there. Although the CIA did not know his identify, or that of anyone else in the buildings, U.S. officials “had no reason to believe either hostage was present,” the White House said. Officials later determined the senior al-Qaida figure killed was another American: Ahmed Farouq, who also has Pakistani citizenship. Farouq led al-Qaida in South Asia, a recently formed group that tried to hijack Pakistani naval vessels in September to attack U.S. ships. He and three senior operatives were killed in the drone strike. A third American, Adam Gadahn, who served as an English-speaking spokesman for al-Qaida, was inadvertently killed five days later in a drone strike in the same region. Gadahn, an Orange County, California, native, was indicted by a federal grand jury in California in 2006 on charges of treason. Had the CIA known that it was tracking and targeting a U.S. citizen in either case, additional legal hurdles would have kicked in that are required when an American combatant is to be killed, including the personal approval of the president. U.S. officials insisted Thursday that the CIA didn’t know who it was killing in either attack, and that Obama was not asked to approve them.
...
http://www.heraldnet.com/article/20150424/NEWS02/150429453

 

[Brian4Liberty]

dang it...i might have to support cruz then if rand is gonna flip on something so major

I can't think of a single issue that Rand might be a little rhetorically weak on where Cruz is not twice as bad.

 

[PierzStyx]

You're not ready for prime time yet if this is your viewpoint. It's not about what is right or wrong in universal terms, because the people that count don't think in universals, it's not the "American Way". It is what you can convince the "American People" of that matters if you are running for office, and the American people still tend to wave flags like retarded children with a baton when the word "Al Qaeda" is mentioned.

But to agree with you in part, innocent people indeed do not have to die. But they will, again and again, and there is little to be done for it at this stage of the game. This is the ugly face of what people call "democracy", a system where the truth is subject to the whims of idiots en masse, usually with a small group of sinister people manipulating them like marionettes.

It's not that Rand Paul can't be bothered to defend lives, it's that most voters can't be bothered with someone who doesn't tell them what they want to hear.

P.S. - I would also like to echo Radiofriendly's sentiments about David Weigel, the guy is basically a snake in the grass. The most dangerous enemy you have is one that is adept at making you see him as an ally.

I'm certainly not ready for prime time. There is no way for me to get elected in this day and age. BUT, and this is the key, that doesn't mean I'm going to give up trying to bring people to the ideals of human worth and inalienable rights, such as the right to live and have your property protected from being destroyed by a random Hellfire missile from the sky. The whole reason I supported Ron Paul so determinedly, so vigorously, is because he did the same. The man is no saint, but he was dedicated to the rights and liberties of all people. And plenty of people were unwilling t hear it, but many of us were, many of us did, and it is my belief that many more will. In order to do this I think we need more people like Ron, people willing to fail in the short term goal to achieve the long term educational goal. Rand may or may not help in the goal of gaining liberty, I can't tell if he is lying to me or everyone else about his libertarianism. But his Presidency will not matter unless more people are willing to believe as we do. Until then all of this is just pissing in the wind.

 

[65fastback2+2]

The point was that American citizens can not be arbitrarily droned anywhere without due process.

In this case, no Americans were targeted, therefore no change in position.

uhhh

The two hostages, Warren Weinstein, an American kidnapped in 2011, andGiovanni Lo Porto, an Italian seized in 2012, were killed Jan. 15 in a remote area in Pakistan known as a Qaeda sanctuary, officials said. An American affiliated with Al Qaeda, Ahmed Farouq, was killed in the same strike. Another American member of Al Qaeda, Adam Gadahn, was killed in a separate strike in the same region Jan. 19, according to the officials.

Go ahead and tell me what the targets were...they are listed above, Ahmed Farouq and Adam Gadahn.

What nationality were they?

 

[hells_unicorn]

Yes, we should pander to the war hawks. That's such a great strategy.

I mean it isn't like the Ron Paul R3VOLution was started as an anti-war movement or anything.

Once we lie our way into power, we'll calmly explain to all those we duped that we actually despise them and intend on dismantling everything they stand for.

Where do I mail my check?

Having assessed the so-called anti-war movement over the past 7 years, it's a part of the movement that is disposable, after all, most of our so-called "comrades-in-arms" on the left fell in line like good little soldiers for Obama in 2008. People subject to such gullibility are allies worth losing, and they comprised a large enough block to give me a healthy dose of skepticism regarding the whole idea of aligning myself with unreliable leftists. Besides, I never subscribed to being anti-war when I signed on, that's what the unwashed punk rock types who swallow all of Noam Chomsky's lofty B.S. were into. I was more interested in going the prudent route of non-intervention save those rare occasions where it can be both morally qualified and declared in a sovereign fashion.

Sorry to kill your purist buzz here laddie, but I'm more in the business of accomplishing what is right, not simply being right while perched on an ivory tower.

 

[Brian4Liberty]

Go ahead and tell me what the targets were...they are listed above, Ahmed Farouq and Adam Gadahn.

What nationality were they?

My bad, fell into the trap of assuming that Ahmed Farouq was not American based on the name. It would be interesting to know if he was born in the US, or what the basis was for his US citizenship. Not easy to find info on that.

Adam Gadahn was different strike. Didn't know we were talking about other strikes. Was Rand addressing both strikes?

Edit: no Americans were actually targeted.

Officials said CIA drones launched a flurry of missiles at a guarded compound in the Shawal Valley, in Pakistan’s remote tribal belt, on Jan. 14 after hundreds of hours of aerial surveillance, as well as communications intercepts and other intelligence, had convinced officials that a senior al-Qaida figure and his aides were holed up there. Although the CIA did not know his identify, or that of anyone else in the buildings, U.S. officials “had no reason to believe either hostage was present,” the White House said. Officials later determined the senior al-Qaida figure killed was another American: Ahmed Farouq, who also has Pakistani citizenship. Farouq led al-Qaida in South Asia, a recently formed group that tried to hijack Pakistani naval vessels in September to attack U.S. ships. He and three senior operatives were killed in the drone strike. A third American, Adam Gadahn, who served as an English-speaking spokesman for al-Qaida, was inadvertently killed five days later in a drone strike in the same region. Gadahn, an Orange County, California, native, was indicted by a federal grand jury in California in 2006 on charges of treason. Had the CIA known that it was tracking and targeting a U.S. citizen in either case, additional legal hurdles would have kicked in that are required when an American combatant is to be killed, including the personal approval of the president. U.S. officials insisted Thursday that the CIA didn’t know who it was killing in either attack, and that Obama was not asked to approve them.
...
http://www.heraldnet.com/article/20150424/NEWS02/150429453

 

[65fastback2+2]

My bad, fell into the trap of assuming that Ahmed Farouq was not American based on the name. It would be interesting to know if he was born in the US, or what the basis was for his US citizenship. Not easy to find info on that.

Adam Gadahn was different strike. Didn't know we were talking about other strikes. Was Rand addressing both strikes?

that is just an excerpt from the news report because the incident reports were released simultaneously.

But, out of the two we know this.

2 Americans, that were reportedly guilty, were killed without a trial.
1 American, that was innocent, was killed.
1 Italian, that was innocent, was killed.

That cannot be happening and it is why I vehemently disagree with Rand on this. It doesnt stand by his principle of upholding all the bill of rights.

 

[dannno]

Now that sounds familiar. Like every time the police kill somebody and say "hey look, there were drugs in the house, so he was a bad guy anyway and it's justified".

lol, holding hostages vs. having drugs is not the same at all....

I will cede your point about finding something out after the fact does not necessarily justify the action in the first place.