45 votes

Oregon's Senators: Where are you? Only Rand Paul is demanding an explanation for killing of US Citizens

Joe Clifford | Salem-News.com
May 19, 2014

Like Rand Paul or not, he is the only member of Congress who is demanding a legal explanation for the killing of US citizens.

Mr. Paul is held in contempt by the left for many legitimate reasons, but the left cannot find it within themselves to rally behind Mr. Paul for trying to prevent more killings of US citizens. Not one member of the left, or Democratic Party is willing to stand with Mr. Paul in demanding a legal explanation for the killing of US citizens. Shame on them!

Mr. Paul is attempting to block the nomination of David Barron as a member of the US Court of Appeals because Paul says it was Barron who wrote the legal briefs justifying earlier assassinations, but Paul argues: "I’ve read David Barron’s memos concerning the legal justification for killing an American citizen overseas without a trial or legal representation, and I am not satisfied.

"While the president forbids me from discussing what is in the memos, I can tell you what is not in the memos. There is no valid legal precedent to justify the killing of an American citizen not engaged in combat."

So if Mr. Paul is correct in his assessment of there being no "legal justification", then it must be an illegal killing, or murder, yet Mr. Paul stands alone in the US Congress.

And where do Oregon’s Senators stand on the issue of assassinating US citizens without due process?

Read the full story:

Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

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

The struggle for justice is always a lonely road.

I was never terribly impressed with Udall or the others and I won't be losing much sleep if they end up losing their seats to slightly more hawkish Republicans, though I'd prefer somebody with an actual head on his shoulders closer to Rand Paul, Massie, Amash and the rest. Getting all buddy buddy with socialists simply because they say a few nice things was never an appealing thing to me, and the whole notion of thinking we'd get support from a hypocrite like Elizabeth Warren who wants everybody to have a $20 wage except for her interns borders on ridiculous.

This is one of those times where Rand has to do the right thing because there is a legitimate threat to actual American political dissenters. As much as I don't like certain opportunistic votes he's made on sanctions, I can understand the need to make inroads with the establishment in order to further the cause. But the entire War on Terror has gotten massively out of hand and somebody needs to keep raising these questions, especially if we're ever going to cleanse America of the Neo-con disease.

“My attitude toward progress has passed from antagonism to boredom. I have long ceased to argue with people who prefer Thursday to Wednesday because it is Thursday.” - G.K. Chesterton

Why is he forbidden from discussing what is in the memo?

I thought Senators were protected when giving a speech on the Senate floor.

For the same reason that the 1st Amendment is limited.

Rand Paul is free to say what he pleases as long as it doesn't actually have an effect on policy. Just like you are free to do as you please unless it interferes with the power accumulation of the powers that be. As the Metallica song goes, "You can do it your own way, if it's done just how I say".

“My attitude toward progress has passed from antagonism to boredom. I have long ceased to argue with people who prefer Thursday to Wednesday because it is Thursday.” - G.K. Chesterton

Michael Nystrom's picture

Not to mention Massachusetts's

Where's Elizabeth "I stand up for the little guy" Warren, and Ed "I've been in congress longer than you've been alive" Markey?

When does that filibuster start?

He's the man.
Michael Nystrom's picture

This explains things

A single Google search turned up this:


Senators Wyden, Udall and Heinrich, who have also criticized the drone program, have argued that the killing of Al-Awlaki was “a legitimate use of the authority granted to the President.” Al-Awlaki played a direct operational role in encouraging Nidal Hassan to go on a shooting spree at Fort Hood that killed 13 people and in assisting the Al Qaeda "underwear bomber" in trying to blow up an airliner over Detroit in 2009. Paul has tried to claim that Al-Awlaki was “not engaged in combat,” but that dismisses how important Al-Awlaki was in terrorist attacks. The administration has made this case publicly. Attorney General Eric Holder openly said that it would prefer to capture a U.S. citizen engaged in this type of operation but that when they operate from a place like Yemen, that may not be possible and the president has the Constitutional power to utilize military force.

And considering Barron is from Harvard, it is clear that Warren is not going to stand against one of her own.

He's the man.

The New Republic knows as much as you and I know...nothing

Nobody has seen one single piece of evidence that has been independently verified and scrutinized that Al-Awlaki 'played a direct operational role' in the Hassan shooting or the Underwear bombing.

The New Republic does not deem proof, nor a spirited defense, necessary or appropriate. An accusation is sufficient.

Rand Paul has a lonely fight ahead of him.


yes, and I think the proper thing is to request extradition. Yes following the law can be time consuming and frustrating but there is a reason for it. If we don't fight for one person's right to a trial then we can't expect it for ourselves either.

Both of our senators are non-responsive

on this matter. I wrote to both and no responses. This article rings true to just "talking the talk."