Rand endorses recent Pakistan drone strikes against Americans

[dumbdumb]

uhhh



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

What nationality were they?

Before they made the choice to leave the United States and join Al Qaeda they were Americans...
What about Warren Weinstein's constitutional rights? He didn't choose to be a hostage, he has no rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness? Why are the hostage takers rights to a trial more important than the hostages rights to live and not be taken hostage? If someone takes your wife/husband hostage here in the states and is holding a gun to her head would you be ok if the police tell you they cant do anything about it until he either gives up or kills the hostage because the hostage taker has the right to a trial no matter what?

 

[Brian4Liberty]

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.

And I left out the main caveat on use of drones per Rand. Courtesy of Specs:

I guess you must have missed where he said somebody actively engaged in a crime, act of war, an imminent threat can rightly be taken out.

 

[Rudeman]

There's a big difference between targeting to kill Americans and accidentally killing them.

 

[Brian4Liberty]

Before they made the choice to leave the United States and join Al Qaeda they were Americans...

This brings up a very relevant question. Under what circumstances can citizenship be revoked? What is the due process for revoking citizenship?

Additionally, what does a person need to do to renounce citizenship? Does it have to be formal? Once again, what is the due process?

 

[wizardwatson]

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.

It's like everyone uses this line. Over and over and over.

If I say speak the truth all the time I'm a purist. Then the self-proclaimed pragmatic/practical call me out and say it's unreasonable to be truthful all the time if you want to accomplish anything.

Yes, life is harder and tougher for you if you tell the truth and follow ideals and fight for what is right.

Just like "having things" is harder if you work for it instead of steal, and haggle, and cheat.

I'm perfectly happy in this ivory tower. Speak the truth no matter what.

My purist buzz only gets stronger by the day.

 

[dumbdumb]

This brings up a very relevant question. Under what circumstances can citizenship be revoked? What is the due process for revoking citizenship?

Additionally, what does a person need to do to renounce citizenship? Does it have to be formal? Once again, what is the due process?

It's just my opinion, but I believe regardless of technicality when you hinder the rights of someone else (holding them hostage) you also revoke some of your rights... Otherwise we would have murderers in court stating they cannot be sentenced to prison because it burdens there "pursuit of happiness".

 

[Brian4Liberty]

Here is more information on these two strikes. In both cases, Americans were not targeted.

Ahmed Farouq also has Pakistani citizenship. How he came to acquire US citizenship is still a mystery.

The claim is that it was simply attacks on al-Qaida complexes, where no Americans were expected to be.

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

 

[Krugminator2]

I think it's really sad that Ron Paul just came out with a video talking about how horrible it was that American's were killed and Rand comes out and gives his usual squishy non-principled stance on a very crucial issue.

Is it too late for a Ron Paul 2016 campaign?

Ron isn't Jesus Christ. Just because someone disagrees with you doesn't make them unprincipled. Rand isn't a pacifist. Libertarianism isn't pacifism. Sorry. I believe pacifism and self-sacrifice are immoral. There is absolutely nothing wrong, nothing unlibertarian, and nothing immoral about droning an Al-Qaeda compound.

US citizens were not targeted. It is unfortunate that some were killed.

 

[dannno]

Before they made the choice to leave the United States and join Al Qaeda they were Americans...

You have to realize that most people here understand that the CIA created and funded Al Qaeda and ISIS in order to create an enemy to target so that we can have an excuse for our military and political interventions, as well as for profits in the military industrial complex.

So the entire idea of defending these attacks against an entity which we created does not make any sense to most here. Ron Paul was able to express these ideas somewhat, even if he didn't focus as much on the fact that they were purposefully created by intelligence operations and instead focused on them being created as a reaction to our foreign empire..

Rand is not doing that, so he isn't doing much to educate people about the true nature of our foreign policy, and that is why many people here are upset. They think he should be using his Presidential platform to layout the truth about our foreign policy.

That would be beneficial, but arguably it would be more beneficial if Rand just became President himself.

 

[jllundqu]

Ron isn't Jesus Christ. Just because someone disagrees with you doesn't make them unprincipled. Rand isn't a pacifist. Libertarianism isn't pacifism. Sorry. I believe pacifism and self-sacrifice are immoral. There is absolutely nothing wrong, nothing unlibertarian, and nothing immoral about droning an Al-Qaeda compound.

US citizens were not targeted. It is unfortunate that some were killed.

No, he's is not Jesus. I am pointing out that Dr. Ron Paul seems to hold a very different view from his son.



"Being an American, in this day and age, means nothing. This was targeted assassination."

-- Ron Paul April 2015

 

[dannno]

There is absolutely nothing wrong, nothing unlibertarian, and nothing immoral about droning an Al-Qaeda compound.

There is something REALLY wrong with creating, funding and helping grow Al Qaeda just to bomb them. People should know that. Rand doesn't need to be the one to tell them. There are 6 billion people on this earth who are equally responsible for getting that information out, and if Rand were the one to tell them then it would not be furthering our goals because Rand is more valuable doing what he is doing to get elected.

 

[dannno]

No, he's is not Jesus. I am pointing out that Dr. Ron Paul seems to hold a very different view from his son.

Actually I think Ron Paul would be all for targeted assassinations or killing of American citizens if they were holding innocent Americans hostage in a combat zone. How else are they going to free the hostages?

What would you do?

 

[hells_unicorn]

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.

Fair enough, but you'll be so kind as to stay out of the way and not cut Rand Paul off at the knees in the process? Furthermore, I have no illusions about any utopia springing for from a Rand Paul presidency, I'm in this game for a realistic, incremental degrading of this massive, out of control Leviathan that is our Federal Government. Keep your principles, but be wary of going the road of fanaticism. Fanatics are far more dangerous to those close to them than their enemies, remember that.

 

[hells_unicorn]

It's like everyone uses this line. Over and over and over.

If I say speak the truth all the time I'm a purist. Then the self-proclaimed pragmatic/practical call me out and say it's unreasonable to be truthful all the time if you want to accomplish anything.

Yes, life is harder and tougher for you if you tell the truth and follow ideals and fight for what is right.

Just like "having things" is harder if you work for it instead of steal, and haggle, and cheat.

I'm perfectly happy in this ivory tower. Speak the truth no matter what.

My purist buzz only gets stronger by the day.

Allow me to modify the term to better suit the conversation then. Forgive me for depriving you of the momentary euphoria of a committed fanatic. Sound better?

Now, I'm not big on the idea of attacking my own team, but I think a few points need to be offered here regarding the assertions you've made.

1. Nobody tells the truth all the time. Anyone who argues otherwise is deluding themselves.
2. Life is harder when you tell the truth, and sometimes telling the truth involves admitting that a strategy isn't working.
3. Politics has little to do with truth, especially insofar as American politics is concerned. You work with what you've got until something better that is also viable comes along.
4. If you find yourself attacking people that are close to your views for not getting it perfect more often than attacking the actual enemy, you've crossed the point from being principled to being a fanatic.

At the very least, consider that you are hearing the "purist" remark over and over because, heaven forbid, there might be something to it. Just a thought.

P.S. - I apologize for the double post here.

 

[Brett85]

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".

Absolutely. It's kind of like Fox News asking him "are you an isolationist or are you an interventionist?"

 

[hells_unicorn]

+rep

Interesting that we are having this debate on RON Paul Forums, huh? But the apologists here will downplay and defend. They all howl about intellectual honesty and standing for principles, then can't rush to defend fast enough things that Ron Paul himself would find deplorable...

Hmm, so you're saying that Ron Paul finds his own son deplorable based on a nuanced response on a hostile news network? Wow, Ron Paul Forums sure became an interesting place while I was on hiatus. Do tell me more.

 

[LatinsforPaul]

No, he's is not Jesus. I am pointing out that Dr. Ron Paul seems to hold a very different view from his son.



"Being an American, in this day and age, means nothing. This was targeted assassination."

-- Ron Paul April 2015

And Ron is STILL endorsing his son for President of the United States.

 

[Brian4Liberty]

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".

Absolutely. It's kind of like Fox News asking him "are you an isolationist or are you an interventionist?"

Actually, it was a missile, so the question is "are you for or against missiles"? Or are you pro-flying machine or against them? Pro-gun or anti-gun? All about the tools, not the actions taken.

 

[jllundqu]

Hmm, so you're saying that Ron Paul finds his own son deplorable based on a nuanced response on a hostile news network? Wow, Ron Paul Forums sure became an interesting place while I was on hiatus. Do tell me more.

Wow... nice of you to put words in my mouth. I'm simply pointing out, as many others here have, that Ron Paul would (and has..see video) take a more principled stance on the subject of drone warfare, the CIA, civilian deaths, etc. Rand's ploy to pander to the hawks is not something new, it's just painful for true anti-war folks to watch, seeing as how this movement was started by hardcore anti-war RP supporters.

 

[presence]

Actually I think Ron Paul would be all for targeted assassinations or killing of American citizens if they were holding innocent Americans hostage in a combat zone. How else are they going to free the hostages?

What would you do?

diplomacy?

Has it ever occured to anyone to enter diplomatic relations with AQ and ISIS?

Its not like we don't all have email and cellphones these days.

Why is always... oh fuck... shitty situation on other side of the planet. Solution: Bombs.