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?

Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

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

You are exactly right.

Well expressed. I've had this thought as well. The soil that one stands on does not matter.

Mirand Sharma

The Patriot movement and Libertarian position

should be to push for a BAN on all drone use within the USA by any government agency, or any agency contracted out by the government. End of story. That should be the next step in all of this.

The reason they have "american soil"

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."

The only reason they state this is so that criminal or civil suits that have been brought against the killing of anwar al awlaki and his son have no possibility of winning. It gives them cover for these past crimes and possible future crimes. They are back-peddling on the authority to murder a citizen in the USA with a drone, but they certainly won't cede the power to do so abroad because they already have. If they suddenly claim they don't have that power abroad as well then the families will file more lawsuits and they will lose these lawsuits by admitting they didn't have the authority to begin with.

Unfortunate for this country that we have monsters hiding behind legalese and words to protect themselves from prosecution. It has come down to a sick game of gotcha. It should never have been allowed in the first place.

Someone should make tshirts

Someone should make tshirts that say "NONCOMBATANT" in big bold letters on the front. maybe "DO NOT KILL" in smaller letters under it. I'd buy one.

End The Fed!
BTC: 1A3JAJwLVG2pz8GLfdgWhcePMtc3ozgWtz

Reminds me of Animal Farm

No animal may kill another animal EXCEPT . . .


This is a hopeful moment for the Republic and for liberty. Rend Paul is building a bridge to others as his father did before him. The new GOP is pushing the old GOP aside. More people will be open to our ideas if we look for areas of convergence rather than areas of disagreement.

We will need to assuage their fears as we bring them along.

They are/were going to do

They are/were going to do what they want regardless. They kill people and break our own laws routinely. Its more about getting Rand mainstream which this did multiplied by 1000000000.

baby steps

I dont like the language or caveats but this is where we are as a nation

Awareness has been raised

Most people don't think about drones or what the Presidents position is on killing you. I think Rand has facilitated a firewall nationally on this is and the President on the record.

Next phase is you!

What are YOU doing to take what Rand has done and take it a step further to begin to beat back thinking around appropriate use of drone technology?

I think what the OP has pointed out is certainly valid. I just don't believe that the conversation should end now that Obama has been forced to respond. It is now time to push for what the OP has raised. This fight isn't over but the police state has now hit an important road block.

Now the Lord is that Spirit: and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty.
www.yaliberty.org - Young Americans for Liberty
www.ivaw.org/operation-recovery - Stop Deploying Traumatized Troops

Today I found

something really kind of scary. I looked up it here and there are many entries with little response.

"Patriot" is now a bad word. Which comes into my inbox from C4L all the time.

Check out the SPLC and be careful. These people twist words and paint patriots and non progressives as bad people and even worse. They may serve some sort of utility, but they also demonize people, some who I may not like but they a;so demonize people who believe in the constitution. Maybe some are bad, but highly doubtful.

I wouldn't be surprised if there are people from that website who incite others to paint them as bad, especially here.

Most are fear mongerers but I have been a registered Constitutionalist almost all my life and they think constitutionalists are a bad word.

But these people demonize anyone and are highly involved in miscarriages. Not in the webster term. Some of the people that they demonized are indeed people with whom I wouldn't identify with, but they are not friends.

Be wary. I don't understand how this little group can carry so much clout. I dislike hatred of any kind aside from hatred of those who hurt other people. But there are people on their lists I would not consider a threat and whom I know wouldn't ever harm another person.

And adhering to the constitution does not a bad word make. They make constitutionalists look like bad guys.

edit: yes I'm talking about the dreaded t word.

It's this

That bugs me


They confuse patriot with some aggressive stuff and the dreaded T word and make it some sort of fear factor.

I can say I do NOT want to hurt anyone, I don't want to take out the govt., and I am very peaceful and not an extremist. Oh, and I didn't even notice the color of the president's skin nor do I care.

They paint "patriots" as a "hate group".

Who states that a certain group is a hate group and who is an extremist?

This post is really sad. There are so many wrong statements it almost makes me want to break down in tears. I love people of all colors. I also love the constitution. My kid likes dinosaurs. Should my child be demonized for his love of dinosaurs?

If one wants to question govt policies, is one on a list?

SPLC has a list.

Why are they painting it a black vs white hate crime to question the govt? A free society should be able to question the govt.

I love every color on the planet. Black, White, Yellow, Brown, Orange, Pink and Blue, and Gay or Straight. Who cares? Seriously.

Since when does following the constitution does thou maketh a t-word?

My kid is blonde and has blue eyes. Is he one on the list? I'm Lakota on one side and Spanish Hawaiian on the other. His mom was white. I was adopted and have an irish last name. Am I on the list?

What kind of person would NOT question the govt? Tim Leary said question authority and he was Irish. Whas he one of the T-words?

Personally I truly worry about C4L would use the word patriot and I might get profiled. That's screwed up.

Quote: to my son

"Why would patriots be called the T-Word?"

Because they love their county and the constitution. 12 year old.


Nuff said on that topic. I'm sure others will elaborate. Feel free to put "vinceableworld SPLC" into the search if you'd like to hear more of my views on... SPLC. (Don't do it Vince don't do it...)

I get a trial now - at least as long as my feet are planted firmly in America. Who has a claim against me? Bring your claim... feel free to PM for the mailing location to send NOTICE of your CLAIM to as well.

(Speaking to the malevolent underlords)

I hope you didn't think this was directed towards this thread

Don't think you did, but it was directed at the post I linked to. It really bugs me.

Why do these people possess such power and who makes them the dictator?

I searched those idiots and your posts and I still can't see why they have so much power.

It's sick not to question one's own govt especially when approval is at such low levels as now. Almost every american is a threat acording to them.

This org makes people look like a threat simply because they are "patriots" "peddling the constitution". In their own words.

It literally says "Constitutionalists." Or "Neo-Constitutionalists" and "Neo-Confederates"? Plus they list Sons of Confederate Veterans as a hate group. What about Sons of Union Veterans? What side do they take?

Those of us Sons of Union Veterans also embrace Sons of Confederate Veterans and are friends. I know because I am one of them (SOUV). I will bring this up at our next meeting.

What a load of bologna. Or as I would put it what a load of bullshit. I've bunked with Confederate re-enactors and we don't discriminate.

Wasn't sure...

but just wanted to get that on the record.

They have that power because they are basically the propaganda arm of the Department of Homeland Commie Security and Pre-Crime.

Do they have a hate group for the SPLC? I officially HATE the SPLC. I usually hate hateful b**turds like them who give no value to human life and have no care for another other than what they can steal from them under the color of law.

Political Realities

We are not yet winning the foreign policy debate, thus it would be foolish to tie the drone debate to the foreign policy debate - as necessarily happens when you talk about the use of drones overseas. Whereas we can talk about domestic drone use without getting into foreign policy. If the goal is to actually make progress in limiting the use of drones, the place to start is the domestic drone program.

Take a look around and note how many hawkish Republicans are adopting our views on the domestic use of drones. How many of them would oppose us if we applied the same logic to the foreign use of drones? Answer: most of them.

"Alas! I believe in the virtue of birds. And it only takes a feather for me to die laughing."

Imminent Threat

Correct me if I am wrong, but it seems to me that Rand has managed to define that a drone can be used on American soil if a person is an imminent threat.

What about all the non-imminent threats standing around the imminent threat when an hellfire missile lights up the imminent threat along with the surrounding area?


Were Waco and Ruby Ridge imminent threats?

Is the US government going to start dropping bombs on people who are imminent threats?

im•mi•nent [im-uh-nuhnt]
1. likely to occur at any moment; impending: Her death is imminent.
So, someone who is a likely immediate threat can have a hellfire missile dropped on them and so what about the surrounding collateral damage? Is this what Rand has set into concrete?


Yeah kinda seems like the furthest right is too far left.

If what Rand did was the extent of what can be done by the politicians - we're in a lot of trouble because he's as close to the constitution in the senate that you're going to get minus perhaps Mike Lee... who just happens to be in violation of the constitution being an Attorney and a Public Official at the same time but that's a diff story...

(rambling stop)

Why "on American soil"

I believe there are two different debates going on here. The Constitution guarantees that all persons (not just citizens) in the US and its protectorates ("on American soil") have the right to due process of law. When you leave the US, you are submitting your rights to whatever jurisdiction you are entering. I say good luck, you're on your own now.

Rand Paul separated these two circumstances in his filibuster and I agree. While I strongly disagree with the procedures used by the US military in undeclared foreign wars, that is a separate debate issue.

We've been had for a long time

They've done it by never answering the questions. I've never heard a President acknowledge a limit to his own power. Your libertarian universe hasn't entered into it because that kind of thinking has been outside the terms of the debate. They've dominated by setting the terms. Rand just cracked a huge ray of sunshine into the debate. There's no telling what sunshine will do. Whoever is against Rand in this matter, is for killing Americans, at home, without due process. No American politician can slinker around in that kind sunlight without looking like Gollum. Can people extend their conscience to others? We'll see. Have an open mind and ready argument.

Sure they will.

"No American politician can slinker around in that kind sunlight without looking like Gollum."

Sure they will. I bet the average American couldn't care less... unless it happens to them of course.

Unless it happens to them of course

Yes. I think Americans know when they're in the cross hairs. You're not trying to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory, are you?

Lindsay Graham just said the same things he's been saying for a decade, and an exuberant Rush Limbaugh says he doesn't know what Graham is talking about. Maybe that's the Rand Paul Gollum effect. Makes neocons look like Gollum! What do the neocons want? The ring of power.

All of this why a declaration of war is required

and from the most logical form of representative republic this means that this declaration must come from We the People as presentment to our delegated representatives to re-present the declaration of war to all representatives from all states and districts and then simply re-present the yes or no we preent to our representatives for the final word.

As far as terrorist attacks every man and woman who is not under capacity or agency of the binding contractual oath are already authorized under natural law to defend ourselves as we see fit under all circumstances no matter who we are dealing with and every individual man or woman each stand fully liable for every action the take.

Think about it all sides of this thing is about protecting domestic tranquility. Domestic tranquility is about each of us pursuing and obtaining happiness. Any obstruction to the pursuit of happiness of anyone by another destroys their tranquility. This applies to anyone and everyone no matter what capacity you are under or what country you are in; it is Natural Law. This why we have due process and justice for the very reason and purpose of ensuring domestic tranquility.

So, ultimately it is our job to defend ourselves and hence we put huge portions of our labor and treasure into forming the most advanced intelligence gathering machines and advanced military deterence in the history of mankind. The Agents we have tasked and payed to facilitate this for us now are essentially saying that we cannot have access to these tools and information, it is all secret, it is a national security issue so we cannot tell you what we know we just need to act however we want with no liability for our own actions. Hey a$$hole's in the "government". This is our property and we built it for our security and domestic tranquility for the very purpose of having truth so that we can have real justice. Real justice is what will be the best assurance of domestic tranquility Do you think that we will all be "safer" if only you "government" dumba$$es have access to intelligence and security tools or do you think we will be safer if those tools are opened up so that all the patriots across this country and the world can participate in security and real justice. It is clear that congress no longer re-presents. and It is clear that the secrecy is because they are criminals who are utilizing the tools we built to secure us is now being used as a weapon of war against all people everywhere for the purpose and motive to force the use of an unlawful tender upon everyone that inherently makes them a debt slave to a devaluing currency. Yeah, vinceable world we to make a massive public push. We need expose the fact that these people are using the tools to protect their criminal activity.

Wake up fence sitting wonks. Checkpoints everywhere, Everyone needs Papers to move around, psychopathic cops killing and maiming people in the streets, criminal banksters getting bailed out for committing massive criminal fraud, mathematically guaranteed to fail debts notes as tender, Law enforcement running guns to drug dealers, licenses for everything, prisoners in jail who have never harmed anyone, presidential assinations in secret, mass genocide on multiple continents, People in jail and having swat team raids over raw milk, children being taken away from parents and forced to use psychotropics, On and on... Keep pushing from all sides.

The most powerful Law of Nature is Time. It is finite and we all will run out of it. Use this Law to your advantage, for it offers you infinite possibilities...

Wow man...

you make things sound so bad! lol

Congress has granted "any time you want war"

via the War Powers Act - it needs to be repealed. Personally I can't imagine why this act could delegate congressional power to the executive branch past the time that most of the people who passed it into "law" have died.

Anything repugnant to the Constitution

Is null and void. Period! Most of the people in congress are criminals who want these powers to destroy the people who might bring them to justice. If you truly understand the re-present concept that representatives are supposed to be doing you will find that none of the enactment in congress are valid. In short here is the conept of representation:

We the People present to representatives what needs to be enacted for government and commercial regulation

The representatives re-present what we have presented

The representatives also re-present information presented to them from other representatives back to We the People of the representatives district.

The People review (or not) and then present the vote for enactment or not.

The representative is bound by the Contract they voluntarily signed the oath to the Constitution and has no lawful authority to vote for anything that is in violation of the prohibitions of the Coinstitutional contract so even if the Constituents want them to vote for a prohibited activity the representive has already bound himself through contract and would stand in breach of duty to that contract if they voted for a prohibition.

If no qurom of constituents presents then representaive can only abstain because there is no presentment with instructions.

Its not like these representatives are supposed to great leaders with all the solutions, its that they should be the wisest to what lawful governance actually is and bind themselves to only re-present within the contractual bounds of duty.

In this logically correct concept of true representative republic then one can realize that literally NONE of the legislation in our lifetimes has ever been a lawful process of republican form of government. In short, the instructions must come from We the People, period!

If we actually practiced this to the tee we would be great with all the Chucklehead zombies because they would never participate or read anything and we never have qurom and thus almost nothing would ever get passed. I say almost nothing because the only things that would get passed would be things that are really affecting people. Common Law and the power accusation would handle everything else organically.

The most powerful Law of Nature is Time. It is finite and we all will run out of it. Use this Law to your advantage, for it offers you infinite possibilities...

I'm not disagreeing with you.

but find one congress member that has the co hones to stand up and say "congress did this and congress didn't have the authority to do this... and you've been acting in fraud... and so have the last 8 or 9 presidents..." (or 15 or so... dependent on where you're starting from)

We don't need a congress member

to say this. We need a Jury to say this. 7th amendment:

"In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law."

Once the Jury interprets the law this will have then been correctly inpterpreted and the precendent is set. A jury's power is only limited to the rules of Common Law. This means that the Jury would even have the power to not only issue the interpretation of fact and law but could even issue a court order to have the opinion be read in live seesion of legislature and delivered certified mail to every member of all legislatures and bureaucrats. This is why it boggles my mind as to why the liberty movement is so focused on politics and not the courts. Many to most in the liberty movement, it seems, are into the game of politics and it seems they take action based on opinion instead well examined self-evident facts of Law itself. I would argue that this is exactly how we got into this mess. Everyone operating on being sooo sure in their opinions about what "needs" to be done to "fix" things and then putting vast time and economic resources into a game that they don't really understand. This means that this political strategy's logical answer to the current political paradigm is to elect a majority body and pass legislation to repeal or alter unconstitutional codes, statutes and policy, all while never realizing that codes and statutes never applied to any entity that does not have a valid contract for binding to such political rules.

In fact when you really examine the whole reason for Common Law it was all about precedent which was completely for the purpose of keeping the Law consistent so that people could have a solid foundation for conducting business and maintaining peace with procedures of finding truth aka real justice. By having a solid foundation the Law itself was able to wittle itself down to simple fundamental truths that everyone could comprehend and be aware of. This is why ignorance of the Law is not a defense because it was well established simple, unchanging and entirely based on procedures for finding truth and protecting innocence from indescriminate harm or injury aka the protections of law. By accepting a foundation of a legislative body making whatever rules it wants then the precedent is constantly changing which on its face is fundamentally wrong because precedent is inherently abhorrent to change. The entire purpose of Law itself is to seek and interpret as to what is logically congruent from Divine law to Natural law, to Common law to Organic Law to Constitutional Law to Code/Statutes to internal regulation and standrard operating procedures. There is a logically congruent and consistent path through interpetation of this inate heirarchy of law that makes things very simple and efficient through solid and unchanging precedent and through isolated applications to discrete capacities.

Under a logical paradigm where code and politics applies to everyone eliminating our ignorance of the Law means everyone has to read, comprehend and understand 10s of thousands of pages of new code every year on top of the millions of pages of Code on the books already in States and Fed. This means that precedent is constantly changing and at any given moment a law abiding man or woman may just arbitrarily become a criminal and have their life destroyed because a few hundred people put some ink on a page somewhere and said hey you have to obey this and pay for this to apply to you. It also means that we have to perform MASSIVE intelligence gathering CONSTANTLY to perform thorough background checks and vetting of those who we will entrust with a vote of confidence and if they still break the law then our only recourse is to organize the masses and recall them or vote them out next time around after more damage to our law is done. This is insanity and those who actually want this scenario loses my support because it seems self-evident that this is a death spiral of a lost and lawless society. If I have ever seen a failure in logic it is accepting this current democracy as a just and lawful and actually preferring this over the rule of law.

So in the end who cares what congress says if the courts are setting precedent across the country. It won't matter what they say if the courts operate lawfully and Juries return to the protections of law.

The most powerful Law of Nature is Time. It is finite and we all will run out of it. Use this Law to your advantage, for it offers you infinite possibilities...

Correct again...

so where do we get a Jury from any volunteers?

We just need a valid cause of action

to get to the jury. A valid cause of action happens everytime "law enforcement" seizes our liberty (in this case liberty is our time) without probable cause from consent of the governed. The smarter move is to wait for the admitted felonies the tyrants commit on the record. This strengthens the reason for thorough pursuit of Justice. Once one understands the law then getting the bcrats to admit to felonies is REALLY EASY. They do it all the time because they do not know what the law is. The thing is I have tried to reach the Jury here in Cali and the bureaucrats subvert my process to the Jury everytime. Little do these Bcrats know that I fully anticipated this from the beginning of my journey to justice and I am conducting criminal investigations and building dossiers on these individual criminal bcrats for eventual obstruction of Justice criminal accusations against each one of them. I will be moving carefully and thoroughly through every slave maze direction they point me in and thoroughly documented this process in order to show how they send me around in circles for the very intent and purpose of obstructing justice in order to protect their racketeering scheme. This is is the beautiful part about utilizing our courts properly is that we can operate locally and can thoroughly identify each and every individual who are committing these crimes. I will eventually push to the maximum to actually get this in front of the Jury but for now their slave maze gives vast amounts of intelligence and valid causes of action against a wide swath of criminals.

The hard part is getting a Jury of peers to hear the case. Most people in America are brainwashed. However, this is where larger movements like the Ron Paul people could push this concept to complete and total victory if they could realize how are the real protections of law actually works and realize that they are now right where the establishment wants them; in politics and not in the Juries. Imagine 10-40 million people across this country doing this constantly and completely independently. The criminals would be in prison within a matter of months and the other criminal bcrats would begin to think twice about continuing their criminal activity. When the people fear their government there is tyranny when the Government fears the People there is Liberty. They are going to have to be scared sh!tless of the people before they stop and warfare doesn't scare them. Losing power from proper Law and Justice is what scares them. The answer seems obvious when one really thinks it through to its end.

The most powerful Law of Nature is Time. It is finite and we all will run out of it. Use this Law to your advantage, for it offers you infinite possibilities...