67 votes

The "Acceptable" Lines Have Been Drawn In the Drone Debate. When is Murder MURDER?

I am supporting a great organization that is helping us get the message out loud and clear... you can't have our guns! (Who says we got some?)

************************************************

It's quite frankly shocking to go back over the last 20 years of this country's history. For those who seem to have forgotten... or it's just "escaped their minds," the Declaration of Independence does not say "All Americans Are Created Equal."

The Constitution goes on to say persons, people and [C]citizens not "Americans" when it lays out the explicit rights which the founders felt were most important to enumerate. Then of course we have the 9th and 10th articles of the Bill of Rights to seal up any loose ends in case power hungry wanna-be dictators decide, "Well, the Constitution doesn't address this... I guess we can have this power too."

For those who think that, PLEASE review, MOST IMPORTANTLY the 9th (which does not include the word STATE) and the 10th Articles of the Bill of Rights.

Where in the Constitution does it say foreigners do not have rights? Where do politicians... and now many of you(I stand corrected)... get the idea that Americans in some way shape or form are "more equal" than people in other countries? If you think that... how can you be legitimately pro-life if you think some lives are more valuable than others?

Another thing that really kinda freaks me out about this whole drone debate is that it is "obviously not okay to kill an American on American soil without due process."

QUESTION: WHY IS "on American soil" in that sentence?

I have many questions... perhaps a lot more than can be answered in a 13 hour filibuster... and likely would not EVER be answered - of course.

So by phrasing the debate around the words "on American soil" now, by default, condones the killing of Americans NOT ON FOREIGN SOIL... does it not? Or as Fishy pointed out FOREIGNERS on American soil - AND potentially any American Citizens guilty of standing around that "suspected terrorist that was an imminent threat."

Edit Pardon me... but if I'm standing near a terrorist... I will take my chances with being well armed vs being bombed by a hellfire missile - sacrificing my life in order to get one terrorist (and the lives of perhaps a dozen others). I appreciate being reminded by Rand that these are "Hell Fire" missiles that the DBA govCorp is mulling over dropping on us!

I keep waiting for RoboCop to show up at my door to confiscate my guns (just in case I might have any anyway).

So now obviously this puts Rand in a tough position... because in order to get Obama to admit he can't do something HE'S ALREADY DONE on FOREIGN SOIL or to FOREIGNERS he could have filibustered for the entire 2013 cycle and he would never have gotten an answer. Obama/Holder would need to be taking the 5th.

EVEN THE ANSWER was cryptic.

Maybe this is also a fear tactic to prevent Americans from taking their capitol and fleeing this country before it goes full blown dictatorship?

"Oh, I don't wanna go overseas - I might be killed by a drone!"

Basically what we're saying to Obama is: "Okay we know you already killed Americans on foreign soil without due process (who I'm BETTING were not "terrorists" anyway - hence we will never know because there was NO TRIAL) but we're just going to let that slide.

Aren't we?(Okay maybe we're not?)

Have we not already surrendered a TON of ground? How many times do we step back and draw another line? I think the grassroots really needs to take what Rand did to the next level. We can't just hang on his words - we MUST PUSH THROUGH them to the real issue which is... if someone... ANYONE is not engaged in combat... and you KILL them... that is MURDER!

No ifs, ands, or buts... thoughts?




Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

"He got the murderous bastard to admit he didn't have the

authority to drone a non-combatant US citizen on US soil."

He did? He got them to admit that they wouldn't bomb someone that's innocent anyway? That's awesome.. quite a feat. Sweater knitting grannies, soccer moms on the way to practice, construction workers and every other innocent person going about their daily lives are thankful I am sure.

"What do you want from Rand"

His resignation and replacement with a real libertarian and that's the nice part.

Patriot Cell #345,168
I don't respond to emails or pm's.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&feature=endscreen&v=qo8CmO...
Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution, inevitable.

No, what the letter

said was he doesn't have the authority to "use a weaponized drone against a citizen not ENGAGED IN COMBAT ON AMERICAN SOIL."

The bold effort the present bank had made to control the government ... are but premonitions of the fate that await the American people should they be deluded into a perpetuation of this institution or the establishment of another like it-Andrew Jackson

Uhhhh, that would cover the innocent people

I was talking about, which is so ridiculousness it's irrelevant. OF COURSE he doesn't have a right to do that.. but as Rand stated in his filibusta "I would be okay with them using it on a robber... AND on CNN... Taking out the Times Square bomber would have been okay too"

One of them isn't an enemy combatant and the other one was surrounded by those innocents we were talking about.

That still doesn't take away the fact that the military will be conducting drone strikes inside the US border and that seems to be okay with you and Rand.

All they've done is concocted a way to get new blood into the republican voting booths while maintaining their militarization of this country and people like you are helping them do it.

I just hope it's someone you know that's standing next to a known terrorist when a hellfire strikes the fella across from walmart.. maybe you and the other neocons will get to see what the hard reality of your support costs.

Patriot Cell #345,168
I don't respond to emails or pm's.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&feature=endscreen&v=qo8CmO...
Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution, inevitable.

The simple fact

is that what Rand got wasn't what You, I or He wants, but he is doing something. Most importantly he has people now talking about and condemning drones. Little ole ladies now know the danger of drones, liberals, republicans, media, social media all talking about drones and questioning their use. Your anger at Rand is severely misplaced, you should be going after Obama, McCain, Graham, Reid and others. I think maybe you should step back from the situation for a bit, doesn't seem healthy for your physiological well being. Have you ever seen the movie "What About Bob"?

"I think you should take a vacation from your problems" - Richard Dreyfuss

The bold effort the present bank had made to control the government ... are but premonitions of the fate that await the American people should they be deluded into a perpetuation of this institution or the establishment of another like it-Andrew Jackson

"Your anger at Rand is severely misplaced, you should be going

after Obama, McCain, Graham, Reid and others."

I'll go after the people that deserve it and they all do, including you.

And I'm as healthy as they come.. it's okay to have well placed anger. My mind is right on target. It's people like yourself that are disturbed.

Patriot Cell #345,168
I don't respond to emails or pm's.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&feature=endscreen&v=qo8CmO...
Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution, inevitable.

Didn't you just admit to being "disturbed" and

then call someone else disturbed?

it's okay to have well placed anger.

Disturbed and anger aren't the same thing

I am angry, not crazy. They are crazy and not angry. :)

Patriot Cell #345,168
I don't respond to emails or pm's.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&feature=endscreen&v=qo8CmO...
Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution, inevitable.

Well lets see

Rand could have started the filibuster and went on in his speech to demand that all drone strikes domestic and foreign be stopped. While we are stopping the drone attacks we should close down all the over-seas military bases and bring all troops home asap. Then he could have railed that the FED and the income tax be abolished now and return to a gold standard. This could have lead him into the war on drugs and how that should be abolished immediately as well. In the end there would have been maybe one person left there to support him, Justin. All the others senators and house members would have ran away even if they agreed with a lot of what he said. The MSM, democrats and just about everyone but libertarians would be calling him a kook. This would have done nothing except excited Us. Bringing this country back to sanity isn't an overnight process no matter how much you think it is. How long is it going to take, I don't know a lot depends on their ability to manipulate the economy.

The bold effort the present bank had made to control the government ... are but premonitions of the fate that await the American people should they be deluded into a perpetuation of this institution or the establishment of another like it-Andrew Jackson

None of your mealy mouth justifications make one bit

of sense.

Patriot Cell #345,168
I don't respond to emails or pm's.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&feature=endscreen&v=qo8CmO...
Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution, inevitable.

That may be your best post ever.

We have, by default, consented to drones used on Americans on foreign soil. foreigners on American soil, and of COURSE foreigners on foreign soil. And anybody nearby is merely collateral damage, nationality guilt and innocence are of no consequence.

This is the article that got my posting privileges revoked:
http://bklim.newsvine.com/_news/2013/05/12/18212165-dr-stan-...

Okay cool...

can we talk about the sheriffs now???

http://www.dailypaul.com/260491/how-to-use-the-forclosure-cr...

...and focus on getting just ONE NO COMPROMISE constitutional sheriff elected in just ONE county this cycle? The sheriff is the answer to all your prayers DP members. All your energies should be focused on making sure the CHIEF LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER KNOWS YOUR RIGHTS.

This is a COMMON LAW country. It's not a CIVIL CODE LAND... the civil codes are for the public servants serving in government!

They tried here last cycle.

We did not live here yet, but I stopped and chatted with the local little old ladies of the GOP as they sold goodies to send delegates to convention. These women blew my mind - they knew all about Agenda 21, and assured me that they had been to the Sheriff's candidates debate and quizzed every candidate, and assured me they ALL know about Richard Mack and intend to defend the Constitution. Now, they were all trying to get elected at that point, but just having the little old ladies that awake was pretty sweet.
Now if we can get ONE Sheriff who understands that "possessing" things you earned is a RIGHT not a crime...

This is the article that got my posting privileges revoked:
http://bklim.newsvine.com/_news/2013/05/12/18212165-dr-stan-...

QUESTION: WHY IS "on American

QUESTION: WHY IS "on American soil" in that sentence?

I kept thinking the same thing.

Christians should not be warmongers! http://www.lewrockwell.com/vance/vance87.html

Vinceableworld raises important points

Rand Paul is not the ideological straight shooter like his dad. Rand is more like a typical politician playing the political game, so without the millions of citizens standing up for the Constitution and Bill of Rights, Rand many not even have attempted a filibuster. So this was a small victory for "we the people", in that we were able to hold the line in spite of losing some ground. But like vinceableworld says, we must start gaining ground or one day we'll lose the war.

Rand did prove something though,i.e., taking a stand on principle, in the face of great opposition, can be a force for good in the world. Check out this post, "Rand Paul: One person can make a difference"

http://www.dailypaul.com/277342

http://www.dailypaul.com/277342 (Rand Paul: One person can make a difference)
http://www.StandUpForYourRights.me/?p=1264 (Fast and Furious hearing)

I am not discounting Rand Paul's filibuster one iota...

don't get me wrong.

The FACT is he was PUSHED in that corner to grab what little left of the rug he could still get a hand on in this late stage of the game when we've given up so much ground already.

OFFICIALLY: WELL PLAYED RAND... KUDOS!

That's what I'm saying now though... what we're ALL SAYING here now... and WOW is... it's UP TO US! Pro LIFE - is PRO LIFE! Neo-cons are going to have a hard time now explaining overseas killings or killings of foreigners to the public with the BRIGHT LIGHT OF TRUTH SHINING ON THIS!

Do you think "Murder is MURDER!" Now has legs for a national debate? By drone or otherwise??? (Oh wow yeah I'm setting the bar high there I know.)

I'm trying to read as much as possible, and I'm trying to . . .

understand. The past few days on DP I have come to the conclusion that there are two viewpoints on DP:

--something (in the right direction, in the cause of liberty) is better than nothing, and . . .

--only the most perfect thing is acceptable.

Living in an imperfect world, I am inclined to believe that if anyone takes a step in the right direction it is better than standing still.

it's hard to be awake; it's easier to dream--

I believe this is very poignant to your comment

please read this:

http://mises.org/daily/1709

“With laws shall our land be built up, but with lawlessness laid waste.”
-Njal Thorgeirsson

I will look at this link--

You don't happen to mean 'pertinent', do you?

it's hard to be awake; it's easier to dream--

A long time ago..

I referred to a quote:

"Lead, follow, or get out of the way" - Lee Iacocca

Compromise, such as nra, is what got us to where we are today. Little baby steps, a little here, a little there, while tptb are uncompromising in their effort.

When all you have to do to regain pride and strength is to take a listen to my sig :-)

2014 Liberty Candidate Thread: http://www.dailypaul.com/287246/2014-liberty-candidate-thread

2016 Potential Presidential Candidates: http://alturl.com/mt7tq

"What if the American people learn the truth" - Ron Paul

After joining the r3volution, I revised that quote.

Lead only by example, follow only if you are lost, and remember, you can only "get out of the way" once per lifetime.
;)

This is the article that got my posting privileges revoked:
http://bklim.newsvine.com/_news/2013/05/12/18212165-dr-stan-...

"Compromise, such as nra, is what got to where we are today.

Little baby steps, a little here, a little there, while tptb are uncompromising in their effort."

Yep, as good as trying to bend a steel rod, with a wooden hammer.. You might shape the rod a little but your hammer is going to fail over time, long before you ever get your desired result.

Patriot Cell #345,168
I don't respond to emails or pm's.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&feature=endscreen&v=qo8CmO...
Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution, inevitable.

Correct: The lines are wrong

The correct line should be whether Congress has declared war, not the location. Because the U.S. has not fought a substantial war on its own soil since 1812, people confuse declaration of war with U.S. soil.

In fact, Holder would have been correct in his letter if instead of giving 9-11 as an example, he gave the example of Congress having declared war against Mythistan, and a U.S.-born citizen who grew up in Mythistan came to the U.S. as an armed soldier wearing a Mythistan uniform, then of course the U.S. military would have right to use armed drones against such a soldier on U.S. soil.

Again

War Powers act unlawfully delegated congresses delegated powers to declare war. We the people delegated that authority to congress. We expressly wanted separate branches... checks and balances. WE NEVER delegated the power to DELEGATE delegated powers!

Please note how I never say "authority" with respect to what public SERVANTS have... I always say "powers" (which can be taken away - by us).

I'm really glad we all see

I'm really glad we all see eye to eye on this matter...

I was getting the feeling this site was turning very 'repub conservative' since Rand took the reigns. I don't agree with his tactics or his stance on war, but if he can at least get somewhat close to what Ron Paul was trying to do then that would give way for some true non-interventionist to get into office in the near future, 2020 perhaps? I'm happy about the unity here, though. Murder is murder anywhere.

Agree. Common sense!

"we MUST PUSH THROUGH them to the real issue which is... if someone... ANYONE is not engaged in combat... and you KILL them... that is MURDER!"

This is really encouraging.

When I posted this I was like "I really hope people are going to get what I'm trying to say here." As if this is an extremely complicated grey area.

Now I'm sitting here going "of course they agree with me! Murder is MURDER!" and wondering why I'm so shocked that we all agree on this point. I will say that any PTB Scum that happened to click on this thread is probably quaking in their boots because WE AGREE ON SOMETHING = we're not divided = we're not FIGHTING AMONGST OURSELVES = WE CAN SEE THE CHAINS!

I feel like the entire herd just picked their head up from the grass at once. (Please don't take offense... I often feel like the only one actually paying attention even though there are MILLIONS of us... after 20 years of being a "lone wolf" it's takes a while for that "stigma" to wear off of my own psyche.)

I can't think of anything off the top of my head with respect to liberty and the constitution that is NOT black and white. It's the grey area where they get you... if they can convince you there is one shade of grey... they can take every shade until all that's left is white and at that time it's probably going to be too late to rein in the insanity.

It is a great Socratic dialogue

I completely disagree with the OP, not on his principles, but on his analysis. What I hear from Rand Paul is that he does not believe that our killing of Awlaki was acceptable. But he can not step onto that Senate floor and convince his colleagues to just run over to his side.

It is a classic example of a Socratic dialogue, Sen. Paul is working to win one small battle, and if he can do that then it becomes possible to take more ground, and more ground... If he got up there and stated flat out that we should not use drone strikes even oversees, then quite apart from getting even less support from his colleagues he would have most of the American public shaking their heads an ignoring him. Instead, he carved out a limited and very clear position that he knows will have the support of most Americans.

And if you listen to his words, you will see that on scenarios outside of those boundaries, he did not state a position but rather said that those are for a different discussion. This is the shrewd and thoughtful approach.

I have to agree......he is

I have to agree......he is playing chess...he knows full well that we should be respecting all life and that we should only be killing when engaged in some form or fashion. Like you said...he can't just come out in full opposition to our foreign policy or the masses will run scared. He is trying to avoid the things that made Ron supposedly fringe. (which all of us know was not the case)

Truth before all else.....it is what will allow us to emerge with dignity and honor.

Right On Point, Correct you are Sir!

The Constitution tells the government how it must behave, ANYWHERE around world and with ANYONE, citizen or non-citizen. All humans have their inalienable rights to LIFE, LIBERTY, AND PROPERTY (justly acquired).

The whole issue gets down to War and Battlefield. With the excuse of war and battlefield, all sorts of atrocities can and do occur.

Yet I think this, "on american soil" phrase of Rands, is just a twist he puts in there to make the know-nothing neoconized senators fall into place.

Yes, please BUY this wonderful libertarian BOOK! We all must know the History of Freedom! Buy it today!

"The System of Liberty: Themes in the History of Classical Liberalism" ...by author George Smith --
Buy it Here: http://www.amazon.com/dp/05211820

One correction if you don't mind.

Inalienable should be "unalienable." There is quite the difference between the two (not in Websters) if you pick up a court dictionary (Black's Law Dictionary). You find that "inalienable rights" are ones which you can consent to give away.

Unalienable rights can only be temporarily waived... they can never be taken away (lawfully speaking of course - any jack-booted thug can take them by force).

As a side-note... Do cops ENJOY being called "jack-booted thugs" and venomously HATED by their neighbors? Just wondering... (it's REALLY difficult for me to hate anyone but I actually think I've built up a pretty healthy hatred for "cops" - I should instead hate their training however... and whoever wrote the training manuals... I guess I'm only human.)