143 votes

VIDEO: Paul Fires Back! Senators McCain, Graham think 'whole world is a battlefield'


By Daniel Strauss | The Hill | 03/07/13

Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) blasted fellow GOP Sens. John McCain (R-Ariz.) and Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) on Thursday, saying the two “think the whole world is a battlefield.”

Paul criticized the hawkish senators for thinking the laws of war should take precedence over the Bill of Rights. The two had criticized Paul’s statements about drone policy during the Kentucky Republican’s nearly 13-hour filibuster on Thursday.

Read more: http://thehill.com/video/...

Comment viewing options

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

"but then we just simply draw the line about that here inside

the United States."

That's not even true per the filibusta speech and after talk.. They'll be bombing here too once they define what "imminent threat" is and if I know the government, it'll be a really loose definition that allows them do it to whoever they deem so.

Patriot Cell #345,168
I don't respond to emails or pm's.
Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution, inevitable.

I Disagree.....

If The United States had any shred of integrity or ethics, then the principles of The Bill of Rights would be respected and appl y everywhere. There would be no double standard.

I disagree that it is perfectly fine to use Drones on civilians, and target people with zero due process that are living in Sovereign Nations, but then we just simply draw the line about that here inside the United States.

We should be debating drawing the line ...period... everywhere.

Drone killings are a form of mass murder. If it is done at home, it means we live under a Military Dictatorship. If this is done abroad, then it is also an Act of War (and a War Crime). This is not acceptable.

As Martin L. King once said, an injustice anywhere is an injustice everywhere.

Killing without evidence and due process is a crime everywhere. This is what the real debate should be about.

Too bad that when he was

Too bad that when he was asked about using drones on the Times Square bomber he didn't mention that doing so would have probably resulted in killing some FBI or CIA agents being that it was one of MANY bait and trap operations conducted by those agencies... THAT would have been awesome!

I don't

Understand what is going on. How Come Fox News have a hard on for Rand Paul but then disrespect Ron. There is something fishy going on and I hope Rand is aware of this. Fox News are not our friends. These people are cowards and I wouldn't doubt if they were trying to figure out a way to destroy Rand like they did to his father. I just hope Rand is careful.

I do

Fox News would support killing everyone's first born child if it got them a ratings boost. I never understood the "Fox News is republican" thing. They are sellouts and have found out that feeding BS to paranoid republicans is very profitable (more so than selling to crazy libs). So right now Rand Paul makes them money but the second he doesn't...they will turn.

When Rand laughs he sure does

When Rand laughs he sure does look like his father

Educate and inform the whole mass of the people... They are the only sure reliance for the preservation of our liberty. -Thomas Jefferson

Great Interview

My only small complaint is that he did not bring up al awlaki's son when she said that only 1 American has been killed oversee's.

This would have been a good opportunity to express the dangers of drones being used. If you father is associated with terrorists and taken down in the United States, then there is a good chance you will be as well.

Small complaint?

It is huge! I noticed that too... it is intentional... they have a script they give her, they don't want you to know about the 16 year old son killed! Everything about her little skit (interview) was biased... notice she even gave Rubio almost equal time... Rubio is cleary their next horse in the race, they told him to show up and get his picture taken before Rand steals their show.

Megyn Kelly, all the TV news, is just part of the show... it is all scripted, and there is an agenda. Watch "All Wars Are Bankers"


Can someone

tell me a time in our country when journalists represented the people and not the government?

I mean she is straight out defending the government to Rand right here.
People have a right to know and they should be concerned if their president takes that long to answer a simple question about how he will wield power.

"Once you become knowledgeable, you have an obligation to do something about it."- Ron Paul

Rand's filibuster was a huge

Rand's filibuster was a huge success from where I see. The WH has publicly denounced their plan to use drones on US soil as outlined. McCain is a disgrace to the constitution and the right of filibustering. It is a politically legitimate measure and Rand's use of it could hardly be categorized as a "disservice to Americans". What I am concerned about is Rand's capitulation to vote for Brennan after all this. It won't take much to stage whatever may seem like an imminent threat to US authorizing use of drones anywhere. The big picture here is the dangerous approach to global warfare and its domination by American warlords, Brennan being an active proponent of this. Approving Brennan is condoning WH approach to foreign affairs, and use of drones on international targets, does it not?

can you change everything all

can you change everything all at once? rand already said the use of drones overseas was another debate. one step at a time...

That's fine ...but why the

That's fine ...but why the capitulation to support of Brennan as CIA Director knowing this? Sorry but I do not see this issue as a 'quid pro quo' negotiation.

Rand voted "No" on confirmation, as did

Sens. Barasso and Cruz and 30+ others. Brennan was confirmed by the required majority. Did Rand (and the others) change his (their) vote(s) later, when it made no difference whatsoever? Is that the capitualtion you mean? Other than in that event, I have no idea what you are talking about. Rand voted NO when the vote was taken, even though he would normally agree that a president has the right to appoint who he/she wants. He did NOT do that in this case.

“It is the food which you furnish to your mind that determines the whole character of your life.”
―Emmet Fox

good to know. i

good to know. i misinterpreted the interview posted when he said he was no longer going to hold up brennan's app't.

God bless Rand for this. He's playing chess now.

I was critical of Rand when he (pseudo)-campaigned for Romney.

But then again, for the most part I live in a dreamworld of no compromising, no-way, no-how, no-matter-what (ala RON Paul).

But the fact is, we are so far gone in this country now that maybe the only way is to temper the message (not CHANGE the message), so that ultimately, change CAN be effected.

What I'm sayng is that I'm willing now to give Rand more room to maneuver his way into the presidency.

I think we all have to "stand with Rand" while not compromising our principles, but perhaps restrategizing. (is that a word?)

Just listen to McCain and Graham publically belittle Rand FOR FORCING THE GOVERNMENT TO UPHOLD THE DAMN LAW!!!

What we witnessed yesterday was a RARE occasion of someone speaking truth to power - on behalf of all of us.

"We have allowed our nation to be over-taxed, over-regulated, and overrun by bureaucrats. The founders would be ashamed of us for what we are putting up with."
-Ron Paul


He didn't "fire back" at anybody.

On Facebook:
Personal ProfilePolitical GroupPolitical Page

I don't think you watched till the end...

See subject.

A half-victory

in that in combatant civilians will not be killed... at least until they become combatants.

If they DO become combatants, does that mean that they become viable targets? If so, what happens when a civilian begins to exercise their constitutional rights - especially the 2nd amendment, and perhaps the 4th amendment? Would they too become combatants, and thus viable targets?

I feel like there's a crack of grey territory here that could very well be abused by HRM King Obama.

I believe in the freedom to be what we choose to be.

I agree! ...Too much gray.

Rand seems permanently sucked into enemy territory. The excuse that he's not his father is used a lot. ...Of course he's not; he's Rand Paul! ...But he certainly does like to compromise.

On Facebook:
Personal ProfilePolitical GroupPolitical Page

I agree...

...Rand does compromise, a lot. Standing in the shadow of his father, it's hard to compare the two. But if Ron Paul and Rand Paul were chess pieces, Rand would be a Rook or Knight, Ron would be a SLEDGE HAMMER! Give him space to work. He is playing the Washington game right now as not to me marginalized by the media and he is doing a damn fine job of it. Compromise, phhh!

░░░░░░███████ ]▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄
▂▄▅█████████▅▄▃▂ ☻/
Il███████████████████]. /▌
◥⊙▲⊙▲⊙▲⊙▲⊙▲⊙▲⊙◤.. / \

An artful retort by Rand

and shows he has debating skills few can match.He can be forceful
but not arrogant (as in his questioning of Hillary on Benghazi),
articulate but not condescending, and witty but not crass or mean-spirited. He has also demonstrated he is a determined fighter picking and choosing his battles. He progressed through the filibuster masterfully as an unplanned spontaneous event yet showed he was prepared to meet the task. Whereas Ron’s verbage was sometimes too sophisticated, fast or complex to the uninformed, Rand has shown an ability to articulate his ideas with simplicity, sincerity and purpose. This will draw people closer to him who can identify with the common causes which unite people. I am very proud of him and what he accomplished via the filibuster. We will debate about the nuances of the words "combatant" and "imminent" which needs further discussion, but meanwhile Rand has shown what it takes to be a leader, mover and shaker.

Now Fox is taking up for

Now Fox is taking up for Obama. Oh my.

Resist the temptation to feed the trolls.

Serious question

Why does this matter?
The gov't can kill anyone via missile from a drone and say there was an imminent threat. There would be no evidence left anyhow to think otherwise/ fight back in court (think Chris dorner). Right? My argument is...why use drones over the US at all?

Jury Nullification is a power of the last resort against tyranny.


the next logical step is, since we can not kill Americans on American Soil there is no need for Drones at all. We need to push for a BAN on the use of any drones over the USA.

Drones should be outlawed

You got it.

Tricks and treachery are the practice of fools, that don't have brains enough to be honest. - Ben Franklin

Great Job Rand!

Really proud of what you did! It didn't even go far enough (because it's my understanding that the constitution doesn't only apply to American citizens) but your point was made. You drew a line in the sand and you pointed out how insane the war on terror is that it was even conceivable that our government would act ANY OTHER WAY than to say "no, we would never do that". Senators McCain and Graham should be ashamed of themselves for their comments on what you did. Both our soldiers and our president swear an oath to uphold the constitution. The fact that it took over a month to get an answer to a direct question is very telling. I hope the American people wake up and appreciate what you just did. I think there's a chance they will. Maybe this will begin to turn the tide against those who think the constitution no longer applies.

Take notice how Obama always refers to the constitution as "our traditions and values" rather than "the supreme law of the land". Things have gone WAY too far in the wrong direction. Senator Rand Paul did a wonderful and courageous thing taking a stand for what's right. This nation owes a tremendous debt of gratitude to the Paul family.

who says he's finished

who says he's finished debating the drone issue? maybe he's just getting started. after all, he said the international use of drones was another debate entirely.

A Serious consideration

I have a serious consideration for the citizens of South Carolina and Arizona.. Start petitions to impeach and hold recall elections on both Graham and McCain for their stance on the use of Drones against American Citizens.

It is my understanding that

It is my understanding that Senators cannot be impeached, but there are 18 states that allow for recall. It is also my understanding that Arizona is one of the states that allows recall with no specific grounds required. I say 'understanding' because I have not researched the specifics in any detail. I would love to see Arizona recall McCain.


Let's overturn the 17th Amendment ! And let the states fire the criminals ! Just a though... Share if you think this concept holds water...

http://youtu.be/hrnND0iTfjo (Knowledge is Freedom)
http://idealchoices.info Understanding Bitcoin