The Rand Paul filibuster against drone strikes in the nomination of John Brennan as CIA director brought plaudits from across the political spectrum, but also harsh (and inaccurate) criticism from the Wall Street Journal and other neoconservative pundits.
“He's apparently serious, though his argument isn't,” a house Wall Street Journal editorial concluded of Ron Paul's demands. At the core of the Journal's complaint against Senator Paul's opposition to handing the president the power to assassinate American citizens in the United States was the Journal's belief that the president can kill Americans — inside or outside the borders of the United States — without due process. Moreover, we have the administration's word that this awesome power would only be wielded against "enemy combatants."
The White House appeared to approve of strikes against American citizens, with White House Press Spokesman...
Jim Lincoln wrote: --- Presidents should follow federal law when they do something. I think Mr. Paul wants openness in actions -- surprisingly the same thing Liberals want.
What if presidents make federal law, Jim? Ah, if it were only true that liberals wanted openness. You really must differentiate between their speeches and their actions.
Jim Lincoln wrote: Only in periods of rebellion, is martial law permissible, I think you'll see that the courts have limited the use martial law since the Civil War, and defined the responsibilities of civil and military government. This is an interesting source of information, Martial Law.. Also you might want to look at, President Sends Troops to Little Rock, Federalizes Arkansas National Guard; Tells Nation He Acted to Avoid An Anarchy on what Eisenhower did, and then University of Alabama desegregated when Kennedy federalized the Alabama National Guard. Could they use drones to keep track of movements of people? Why not? They no doubt would not have any qualms about using helicopters to do the same. Presidents should follow federal law when they do something. I think Mr. Paul wants openness in actions -- surprisingly the same thing Liberals want.
Only in periods of rebellion, is martial law permissible, I think you'll see that the courts have limited the use martial law since the Civil War, and defined the responsibilities of civil and military government. This is an interesting source of information, Martial Law..
Jim Lincoln wrote: Rufus, well, when Randy is called a "wacko," by a fellow senator, q.v., John McCain Calls Rand Paul, Justin Amash, and Ted Cruz "Wacko Birds" one should take notice. But you mean I didn't redeem myself with the piece from the liberal "Atlantic," which as far as I can see was rather complimentary of Mr. Paul, in the "Cliff Notes," article? Aren't you happy liberals are heaping praise on Mr. Paul? ...
I don't really care what liberals do, say or think regarding Senator Paul (and you can certainly place McCain in the liberal category). I'm not seeking to support the person but on occasion I do appreciate Senator Paul's ideas.
I do wonder about this though regarding your ideas...
Do you believe the Federal Government should be able to classify a citizen of the United States as an "enemy combatant" and then execute him on United States soil without a trial?
But you mean I didn't redeem myself with the piece from the liberal "Atlantic," which as far as I can see was rather complimentary of Mr. Paul, in the "Cliff Notes," article? Aren't you happy liberals are heaping praise on Mr. Paul? Rather good article in removed all of the hot air all politicians are prone to, and just gave the essence of Mr. Paul's comments.
Jim Lincoln wrote: Ah, "Like father like son," Randy is just as goofy as his father, Ronny. Too bad, the WSJ didn't make their article open to the public, I would suspect they found Randy's comments just as thoughtful and deep as his comments in the Rand Paul’s T***** Tirade. By the way, fellow this intellectual feather-weight did endorse Mitt Romney. Randy sometimes has the appearance of substance, except when you give even a tiny thought, and realize he doesn't really have anything. Hey, but he's good for a laugh.
Mr. Lincoln,
The federal government should have nothing to do with the toilets, light bulbs etc. of its citizens. Your name calling demonstrates a lack of substance in your argumentation and qualifies as railing in my mind.
Do you believe the Federal Government should be able to classify a citizen of the United States as an "enemy combatant" and then execute him on United States soil without a trial?
As best I can tell, this was what Senator Paul was attempting to highlight as it would appear this administration and its appointees are comfortable with assassinating Americans.
Ah, "Like father like son," Randy is just as goofy as his father, Ronny. Too bad, the WSJ didn't make their article open to the public, I would suspect they found Randy's comments just as thoughtful and deep as his comments in the Rand Paul’s T***** Tirade.
By the way, fellows this intellectual feather-weight did endorse Mitt Romney.
Randy sometimes has the appearance of substance, except when you give even a tiny thought, and realize he doesn't really have anything. Hey, but he's good for a laugh. I have no doubt that the WSJ gave a very good comment on Randy's filibuster, much more so, than the comments from the source that SA used. But, if you didn't like the remarks in a conservative source such as WSJ, you might like one from a liberal source ( gasp! ) Cliffs Notes for the Filibuster: Rand Paul in His Own Words. Rand Paul is a liberal?!
ah, Mike, you are getting it. well done. but we must see that the legislation was pushed by republicans and supported by the nat'l convention and the pres'l candidates (both the one who won and lost). and that evangelical leaders stood behind this party and the candidate in this regard... and therefore, although it is easy to blame them liberals, its right in our court.... and continues to be.
I am waiting for our "great, biblical" pastors and denominational leaders to apologize for their support of Iq wore (persecution of Christians) and the subsequent giving away of the bll or rghts before our eyes.
Really important at this point, for us to note who has written these things...
From the news: "At the core of the Journal's complaint against Senator Paul's opposition to handing the president the power to assassinate American citizens in the United States was the Journal's belief that the president can kill Americans — inside or outside the borders of the United States — without due process. Moreover, we have the administration's word that this awesome power would only be wielded against "enemy combatants."
"Enemy combatants" as defined by the administration, of course. So their word means little. Unconstitutional, but hey, so is much of what it does.
Here's another way of looking at it. If employees of the gov kill Americans without trial, merely because they have been they have been defined as enemy combatants, they are acting as criminals themselves. Well dressed ones, but criminals.
1
There are a total of 9 user comments displayed | add new comment |
Dr. Joel Beeke | 11/11/2012
COMMENTS | 
Too bad, the WSJ didn't make their article open to the public, I would suspect they found Randy's comments just as thoughtful and deep as his comments in the 
) 
