Ron's Son is NOT for assasination.

[VoluntaryAmerican]

Rand Paul

"You know I am kind of two minds. There is kind of quandry here, and maybe a difference between whether an American citizen is here, or on a battlefield. I think there is some difference in the location - where you are - for example people captured in Afganistan or killed in Afganistan do not get due process in US court, even if they are a US citizen. So I'm not sure being a US citizen in a battleground is the operative. Is the operative problem.

However on the other hand, I understand my Dad's point. That there is a precedent here, and it is the first time we've had an assasination against a US citizen. We did have rules against assasination of anyone for quite awhile - and I think this is the point he tries to make. Should there be checks and balances ... or should we allow ... should there be some check and balance on the decision of who should be assasinated and I think that's what he's worried about ... The President is now saying that he is not going to reveal the process, or justification, of how it was done and I think even if we take out someone who is really bad there should be rules we obey."

I think most people here are mad because he didn't agree with Ron 100%.

Rand is NOT for assasination.

Rand is NOT a warmonger.

Rand is NOT a neocon.

 

[Feeding the Abscess]

Point out where Al-Awlaki was on a battlefield.

Point out where the battlefield exists with no declaration of war.

There is no "two minds" here. There is one mind:

The Constitution. You're for it, or you're against it.

 

[Anti Federalist]

You have given out too much Reputation in the last 24 hours. Try again later.

Point out where Al-Awlaki was on a battlefield.

Point out where the battlefield exists with no declaration of war.

There is no "two minds" here. There is one mind:

The Constitution. You're for it, or you're against it.

 

[GeorgiaAvenger]

Point out where Al-Awlaki was on a battlefield.

Point out where the battlefield exists with no declaration of war.

There is no "two minds" here. There is one mind:

The Constitution. You're for it, or you're against it.

Stop putting words in his mouth.

Its unethical.

If you want to argue just for the sake of arguing, join The View.

 

[specsaregood]

Point out where Al-Awlaki was on a battlefield.

Point out where Rand said he was.
Better yet, point out where Rand supported the assassination.

Point out where the battlefield exists with no declaration of war.

When us assets are being targetted/attacked. We had not declared war on Japan when they attacked Pearl Harbor, are you suggesting pearl harbor was not a battlefield?

There is no "two minds" here. There is one mind:
The Constitution. You're for it, or you're against it.

If there is a clear an imminent threat, taking out the aggressor is justified and constitutional.

 

[r3volution]

You have given out too much Reputation in the last 24 hours. Try again later.

ill give it 4 you .

 

[Anti Federalist]

The GWOT defines, in the manner of a ghastly doppleganger of Shakespeare:

The whole world is a battlefield.

Thus, this "new authority", granted by no one, voted on by no people's representatives, approved by no plebiscite, thus given to the Executive to kill US citizens, anywhere, is actually on the "battlefield".

 

[kylejack]

"You know I am kind of two minds. There is kind of quandry here, and maybe a difference between whether an American citizen is here, or on a battlefield. I think there is some difference in the location - where you are - for example people captured in Afganistan or killed in Afganistan do not get due process in US court, even if they are a US citizen.

Yes they do, and yes Lindh did.

 

[tsai3904]

Point out where Al-Awlaki was on a battlefield.

Point out where the battlefield exists with no declaration of war.

There is no "two minds" here. There is one mind:

The Constitution. You're for it, or you're against it.

I think Rand's point is WHERE you get due process. Do you get it in a US court or do you get it in GITMO. That depends on if you were captured in Afghanistan firing at our soldiers or if you were captured in the US.

 

[tsai3904]

Yes they do, and yes Lindh did.

Rand is not against due process. This is what he said: "do not get due process in US court"

 

[Anti Federalist]

Point out where Rand said he was.
Better yet, point out where Rand supported the assassination.

However on the other hand, I understand my Dad's point. That there is a precedent here, and it is the first time we've had an assasination against a US citizen. We did have rules against assasination of anyone for quite awhile - and I think this is the point he tries to make makes. Should there be checks and balances ... or should we allow ... should there be some check and balance on the decision of who should be assasinated and I think that's what he's worried about ... The President is now saying that he is not going to reveal the process, or justification, of how it was done and I think even if we take out someone who is really bad there should be rules we obey."

That's weak sauce.

Yes, there are checks and balances.

They are called the Bill of Rights.

 

[kylejack]

If there is a clear an imminent threat, taking out the aggressor is justified and constitutional.

There wasn't.

 

[specsaregood]

That's weak sauce.
Yes, there are checks and balances.
They are called the Bill of Rights.

Yes, it isn't the sharp as a knife edge of his fathers points; but the point remains. I don't see where he said he supported the assassination or where he said Alawaki was on a battlefield and didn't have a right to due process. Which is what is claimed. Where is it?

 

[TheDriver]

The more time Ron, or Rand, spend on this issue, the less time either have to win over mainstream voters. As mainstream voters are with Bill O-Reily on this one. I don't really like Rand's answers, but, I really didn't like Ron's either. As Ron's cost us too much political capital with his blunt answers. The bottom line is everyone deserves due process, especially American citizens. The only time citizens don't deserve due process is if they are fighting against us (in a declared war) on the enemy's' battlefield, and perhaps even here at home in some extreme circumstances (civil war).

This whole incident is another example of Ron wasting valuable time on Fox News dealing with issues that won't win the election. He really needs message control.

 

[specsaregood]

There wasn't.

How do you know? We don't know, which is why even his father said there should be an investigation into the matter. You do not have access to intelligence data.

Besides, I was speaking about the concept, not this particular situation, just like Rand was.

 

[VoluntaryAmerican]

Point out where Al-Awlaki was on a battlefield.

Point out where the battlefield exists with no declaration of war.

There is no "two minds" here. There is one mind:

The Constitution. You're for it, or you're against it.

I did not know he was killed in Yemen, I assumed Afganistan - Rand did not defend Ron as good as he should have.

But saying he is for assasination or is defending Obama is absurd. And that's all I wanted to clarify with this thread.

 

[kylejack]

Quit parsing words. If Rand was his father's son, he wouldn't have made it so ambiguous. He would have clearly condemned the extrajudicial assassination of an American citizen. We wouldn't have any question that he condemned this attack.

 

[specsaregood]

This whole incident is another example of Ron wasting valuable time on Fox News dealing with issues that won't win the election. He really needs message control.

Well he was asked about it, he didnt run off pushing it.

 

[kylejack]

How do you know? We don't know, which is why even his father said there should be an investigation into the matter. You do not have access to intelligence data.

Besides, I was speaking about the concept, not this particular situation, just like Rand was.

Since the kill order has been in place for over six months, clearly the threat was not imminent.

 

[Feeding the Abscess]

I think Rand's point is WHERE you get due process. Do you get it in a US court or do you get it in GITMO. That depends on if you were captured in Afghanistan firing at our soldiers or if you were captured in the US.

Gitmo and all other POW camps and their machinations are invalid without a declaration of war.

Point out where Rand said he was.
Better yet, point out where Rand supported the assassination.

The context was Al-Awlaki. Rand referred to "the battlefield".

"...should there be some check and balance on the decision of who should be assasinated and I think that's what he's worried about"

This is almost precisely what Gary Johnson said when walked in circles by Chris Matthews on the subject.

When us assets are being targetted/attacked. We had not declared war on Japan when they attacked Pearl Harbor, are you suggesting pearl harbor was not a battlefield?

Al-Awlaki is not Japan bombing Pearl Harbor.

If there is a clear an imminent threat, taking out the aggressor is justified and constitutional.

Al-Awlaki was not a clear and imminent threat. He was in transport via an automobile.