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.

Because adding that parts

At least protects us. Most people accept foreign drone attacks because they see it as a military action (though it's more a thought-police action). By emphasizing the location, we make it "home". We can declare the USA to be off limits to war policy, and hopefully prevent drone strikes and the like.

I definitely understand your concerns

but if you want to know what Rand is up to at any given time just pretend you are dumb. He's not a Libertarian's Libertarian because he targets the general public.

I believe Rand framed the question so precisely not to establish an acceptable drone policy, but to get the public to face the issue: "Does the President have the right to kill you and your family with a drone if he says you are a terrorist." The general public are led primarily by their emotions and facing that issue so directly would even make a stupid person nauseous. Hopefully the masses start to oppose drones and we have a real debate.

I do agree that all drone use is unacceptable. Rand doesn't exactly stand for the Constitution, he seems to start where the public is at and push in its direction.

I AM is all that is. Everything else is malleable.

ChristianAnarchist's picture

Yick Wo v. Hopkins...

This very issue was decided over 150 years ago in Yick Wo v. Hopkins. A Chinese "subject" of the emperor of China who had lived in San Fran for over 10 years and had NO intention of ever becoming an "American Citizen" fought all the way to the supreme court and it was decided that ALL men have rights and you cannot distinguish between "citizens" and "non-citizens"...

I've been telling people this for years and the O.P has it spot on. Killing ANYONE without due process unless in self-defense is MURDER.

"I've been telling people this for years and the O.P has it spot

on. Killing ANYONE without due process unless in self-defense is MURDER."

The Founding Documents acknowledge it in plain English, of course it's true.. We all know it at our core.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain UNALIENABLE Rights, that among these are LIFE, LIBERTY and the pursuit of Happiness."

Anyone that tries to circumvent those words needs to be dealt with as enemies because they look to take those things away from you.

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.

See that's the problem...

We read that document... we see "LIFE" guaranteed to us in it. We know inherently that nobody has a right to kill us unless they got a pretty DAMN good reason...

BUT THEY WON'T EVEN READ IT - This thing they say is "old" and "out-dated" - they MIGHT LIKE IT if they actually picked it up (it's about a dozen pages) and browsed over it one afternoon...

It makes a LOT OF SENSE when you realize what the founders had just been through...

It says stuff should be a lot like you THINK things SHOULD BE today.

I believe everyone has rights

But what Rand did was make a big spark, he lit the debate. I don't think anything is set in stone from what happened. This is only the beginning. Now is the time to make the points you are making and keep the discussion going.

I watched Huffington Post because that is what so many people here read. I don't much like it but I don't like FOX either. Anyway, they had a huge picture of RAND last night and this morning as their headline....in red under it included "Where are the Democrats?" After these stories the headline banner was replaced with pictures of the injured and possibly dead kids from drone strikes overseas. So, the debate is going on that should have gotten attention long ago.

While Rand pressed the question of what happens here in our borders to us, he did this in the context of what tactics we are using with drones overseas. He shone a light on what we are really doing over there and that is being discussed now too. So many people have no idea it is happening. I hope this woke some people up.

Overall, the HP writers have been favorable to Rand's stand and they are now chastising the liberal Dems for not standing with him. This is in itself a HUGE change....this is largely a liberal rag. The commentators aren't as nice...but more support than the past.

Again, I think my Senators for being the only Dem's offering support on this. Wyden took to the senate floor during the filibuster and Merkely tweeted in favor of Rand's proper use of the filibuster and then Merkley voted no on the Brennan appointment.

when you say here in our borders to us

Do you really mean here in the "homeland" to 'mericans?

Rand was specific

in the USA to citizens of the USA. I would broaden that to everyone. However, he didn't necessarily exclude other people he just didn't ask that question. He got the ball rolling now we need to press the other questions.

I'm the KING of the WORLD!!!

...and all my brothers are kings... and all my sisters are queens :)

Love to ya DP... ya'll ROK!

This is ridiculous. These people are completely incompetent. We've got all the answers. The solutions are so simple... if only people "in charge" wanted the solutions...

Waitaminute - who's in charge again?

Why are we still sitting here? Can we go now? Ready????

"engaged in combat"

This is not acceptable. All that has to happen is to define "engaged in combat" to mean someone (like Dolan) who is suspected to be on the run from the police and potentially armed.

Under NO CIRCUMSTANCES may due process be circumvented. Anyone ordering a drone strike and anyone operating the drone that makes the strike on an American citizen anywhere, or on anyone on US soil, has committed first degree murder.

The states have the authority and the obligation to prosecute this, be it the president or anyone else. So if this happened in Texas it would likely be the death penalty for the president. Let's pass state laws to prosecute drone strikes.

It's getting them to say that freely

It's easy for us to say, but it's not so easy for the politicians who've got loyalties with those who profit from drones. One has to make it easy for them.

I saw it at the convention.. a liberty group had their candidates speak, and there was one candidate who would be a huge hit on DP.. if I had a camera, you guys would have loved the speach... but half the audience walked out because what was said offended those who were open to liberty, but loyal to the GOP. To call others murderers or traitors, isn't how we win the innocent under the influence of establishment.

Ron Paul's genius ... and the reason he never got killed...

was because he was always the quintessential gentleman. He always stuck with the issues and he never got personal. (I'd imagine he would have liked to many times but he knew what would have happened to him.) He showed us how to beat these guys in the political game by sticking to the facts and simply saying "is this wrong or is this right?"

He very rarely ever attacked anyone by name... or if he even addressed them... he never accused them of being sinister or evil - he would say that "I think he/she is ignoring some basic facts" or something like that.

I'm not advocating for Rand to put a bulls-eye on his forehead... he needs to stick to the issues. It might even be UP TO US to keep the bulls-eye OFF his forehead seeing as NOW IF HE WERE TO ADDRESS DRONE KILLING OUTSIDE THE US HE'S ACCUSING OBAMA OF MURDER DIRECTLY... regardless of if he names him by name.

We need to remember who these people are. This is a MAFIA which profits off secrecy of their activities while keeping the public distracted with this "WWE" style BS with the R' and D's. They kill people like "shooting ducks" (that is reportedly a direct quote) - they give human life NO VALUE WHATSOEVER unless it's their OWN life... they even murder their own FAMILY MEMBERS if they threaten the PLAN.

If you're going to play in that sandbox you better bring lots of cool toys for these crazy kids to play with or they will bury you 6 feet under before you can build your first sand castle.

G*d D**m I'm a poetic mthfkr... yeah that happens sometimes when you've taken a "safety break" to expand your mind. All these poor folks who never have are so missing out... my hipster friends know what I mean :-P

He showed us what central committees are

and invited us to get on them and work to restore the republic, which is what Rand is doing, who is also a genius, saw an opportunity and took it. And he has put the target on his forehead, because he pissed a few guys off who don't like being upstaged and questioned. Who the Hell does the Jr Senator from Kentucky of all places think he is to hold his own fillabuster?

Just win you think you've won the rat race, along comes the fat cat, who uses that sandbox as a dump. Why would anyone play in that?

Apparently, some hold these truths to be self-evident!

Americans are endowed by their geographical location with certain debatable Rights.

Another question is:

Was the terrorist SUSPECT Anwar al-Aulaqi the only American citizen killed by a drone?

Listen to what is said at 03:53 into the interview below:

http://thehill.com/video/senate/286881-paul-blasts-back-at-m...

Why did Rand let the killing of a 16 year old American kid slide? A citizen from Denver, Colorado, who's only crime was having a SUSPECTED terrorist as a father.

To my knowledge - so far - three American citizens have been killed by drone strikes, the other one was Samir Khan

But as you said, the fact that they are American citizens should be irrelevant.

Why did Rand let it slide?

He brought it up, so I don't think that is letting it slide.. he was not going off issue, and that's not easy.

agreed

Rand did say that was another debate and I am sure he feels the same way we do. But remember neocons and dems like killing non americans like its their favorite thing to do so my guess is that he is trying to use language that will be more effective on them. Sad....and I personally believe he should include all people not just americans. But hey all of u rand people keep saying he's gotta play the game. One step at a time I suppose. We should be happy with a little progress

exactly!

exactly!

Finally!! Someone has

Finally!! Someone has addressed this issue. Murder is murder no matter where in the world it takes place.

consider all of this as a respiratory pause, nothing more.

In truth, technically speaking, we've been hijacked in 1913 by NWO banksters, but 'legally' we've been officially a Police State since FDR signed the War Powers Act/National Emergencies Act in 1933, and EVERY SINGLE POTUS since have annually renewed it.

Yup, not much talked about, but not metaphorically, but LITERALLY we've always lived in an official police state/martial law, since 1933. No really, really/:

On November 19, 1973, the Special Committee on the Termination of the National Emergency presented Senate Report 93-549 at the first session of the 93rd Congress. The Introduction to the report, an examination of existing War and Emergency Powers Acts, states:

“Since March 9, 1933, the United States has been in a state of declared national emergency. In fact, there are now in effect four presidentially-proclaimed states of national emergency: In addition to the national emergency declared by President Franklin D. Roosevelt in 1933, there are also the national emergency proclaimed by President Harry S. Truman on December 16, 1950, during the Korean conflict, and the states of national emergency declared by President Richard M. Nixon on March 23, 1970, and August 15, 1971.”[1]

“These proclamations give force to 470 provisions of Federal law. These hundreds of statutes delegate to the President extraordinary powers, ordinarily exercised by the Congress, which affect the lives of American citizens in a host of all-encompassing manners. This vast range of powers, taken together, confer enough authority to rule the country without reference to normal Constitutional processes.”[2]

“Under the powers delegated by these statutes, the President may: seize property; organize and control the means of production; seize commodities; assign military forces abroad; institute martial law; seize and control all transportation and communication; regulate the operation of private enterprise; restrict travel; and, in a plethora of particular ways, control the lives of all American citizens.”[3]

“With the melting of the cold war–the developing detente with the Soviet Union and China, the stable truce of over 20 years duration between North and South Korea, and the end of U.S. involvement in the war in Indochina-there is no present need for the United States Government to continue to function under emergency conditions.”

FDR’s Emergency Act has NEVER been rescinded; recently, as predicted, and practiced by every POTUS since FDR, Barack Hussein oBUSHma just renewed it:

State of National Emergency in effect since November 1979

The United States has been in a state of national emergency continuously for over 30 years, since the Carter administration invoked it premised on the “situation in Iran”. In November 2012, President Barack Obama informed Congress that the State of National Emergency in effect since November 14, 1979 will be extended another year.[1] The National Emergencies Act grants various powers to the president during times of emergency,[2] and was intended to prevent a president from declaring a state of emergency of indefinite duration.[3]

To me, yesterday and today were just another act in the theater of the absurd.

Currency collapse is coming, all the while the biggest explosion in technology boom is coinciding with that mess. Graphene/carbon nanotubes, 3D printing, anyone?

Where will all this lead??

How will we all come out? Who knows?

We're in the midst of an epic, epic history in the making.

But I know one thing: develop your own parallel systems of thrival, because the Ruling Class already has.

IMHO, there's no 'fixing' anything. Stock up, but leave a bit of room for beauty and creativity will ya? lol.

Predictions in due Time...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zGDisyWkIBM

"Let it not be said that no one cared, that no one objected once it's realized that our liberties and wealth are in jeopardy." - Dr. Ronald Ernest Paul

Another anarchist who wants us to...

give up without a fight so the tyrants they claim to oppose can continue building an anarcho-barbarian nightmare. Check out these posts.

http://www.dailypaul.com/277342 (Rand Paul: One person can make a difference)
http://www.dailypaul.com/276369 (anarchists say RP is an anarchist)

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

I think you misunderstood AnCap's comment.

I don't think "giving up" was in the equation. Simply pointing out the facts which I do not disagree with... (hard to disagree with black ink on white paper - on the public record).

Mark joined a few weeks ago

Mark joined a few weeks ago and is on a crusade to rid the world of anarcho-capitalists.

I don't need to do anything to...

rid the world of anarcho-CRAPitalists. I've never met a group of people more determined to self destruct. I just can't resist pointing out their illogical "logic".

http://www.standupforyourrights.me/?p=1047 (Fraud and the Federal debt)

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

ain't gonna happen,

I'm a well heeled breeder with no-alimony-AnCap-harems worldwide.

LOLOL.

I kid, 'cause I love. muahhahaha. though... it'd be a good idea no? Anyone interested in starting a franchise of voluntaryist eros harem compounds, worldwide? we definitely could use more heirs no?

liberty babies!

Predictions in due Time...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zGDisyWkIBM

"Let it not be said that no one cared, that no one objected once it's realized that our liberties and wealth are in jeopardy." - Dr. Ronald Ernest Paul

Even if anarcho-darwinists could...

breed like rabbits, they're ideology still wouldn't have a chance because they're a weak link in human DNA. Just take a look at the world, most people believe in a Creator and a moral society based on the rule of law. Anarchism is just a mutant deformity destined for the dust bin of history.

http://www.standupforyourrights.me/?p=1264 (Second amendment rights)

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

Do you know what anarcho-capitalism is?

"most people believe in a Creator"

Swell, but that has nothing to do with anarcho-capitalism. An anarcho-capitalist society could be populates by Amish or atheists, makes no difference, entirely beside the point. Anarcho-capitalism is about respect for private property, period, and how that can be achieved in the absence of the State.

"and a moral society based on the rule of law"

Ancaps believe in law - what on Earth makes you think otherwise? In anarcho-capitalist circles most of the literature and discussion is dedicated to law, what it should be and how it should be enforced in a stateless society. Find any ancap article or blog post and I almost guarantee you will find the words "tort," "tortfeasor," or "restitution."

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

Who or what will be enforcing...

the "law" in the absence of a state? This is the bizarre "logic" that sets anarcho-CRAPitalists up for unending ridicule. So you're going to have a state like system to enforce the law but it's going it be a "private" state? And the "private" state with the largest "private" mercenary army will control the "private" judicial system?

http://www.standupforyourights.me/?p=697 (Crime of the Century)
http://www.dailypaul.com/277342 (Rand Paul: One person can make a difference)

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

LOL thanks, but been reading his comments

for awhile now.

but it's like sex, if I gotta explain, you clearly don't 'get' it. LOL

what am I gonna do, tell him to track back to all my rather lengthy longwinded nuances between federalism, minarchism, restoration vs. revolution, different avenues of approach, efficacies of various methods vs. others, 'giving up' vs. agorism, especially to someone who doesn't even bother to look up others' comment history, while expecting I answer him like he's entitled to an explanation?

sorry, don't engage those liberal entitlement mentality-ed myopia. but thanks for the back up and stating the obvious;O) lol.

but some of these canards, I just don't have the same patience I used to, especially, ones that sound petty and inane.

by the way, didn't think my rather heavily fortified and prepped community filled with flowers and lead-not-nearby-water tables would be considered an "anarcho-barbarian nightmare." Guess I should cry home to mommy or beg anonymous a-holes to please, please, please accept me. LOLOLOLOLOL

Predictions in due Time...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zGDisyWkIBM

"Let it not be said that no one cared, that no one objected once it's realized that our liberties and wealth are in jeopardy." - Dr. Ronald Ernest Paul

I've taken a lot of time...

to read long winded comments by ancaps, anarchists, voluntaryists, etc., but they always end in the same dark alley where the tyrants they claim to oppose are waiting to mug unsuspecting proponents of limited gov't and the rule of law. None of you can explain how the fabled Non-Aggression Principle could achieve results in a society where the only unalienable right is for the strong to dominate the weak.

http://www.standupforyourrights.me/?p=917 (Morals, Ethics, and the Role of Gov't in a Capitalist Economy)

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

Not disagreeing with the AnCap facts...

just the solutions, i.e., all government is evil so get rid of all government and then what? Let those with the most powerful mercenary organizations run the world. If you think the current tyranny is bad, the AnCap world is totally gloves off, free reign for the current tyrants who pull the global strings of political puppets. Just tryin to give people a heads up about what an anarcho-barbarian future would mean.

http://www.dailypaul.com/277342 (Rand Paul: One person can make a difference)
http://www.dailypaul.com/276369 (anarchists say RP is an anarchist)

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