Reply With Quote
Great, they'll just use Apache helicopters or A-10s to kill them.
Or, you know, bullets.
Win-win.
Poll shows huge support for Rand Paul’s filibuster stance on drone attacks
A new Gallup poll shows a huge majority of Americans — 79 percent — supported Paul’s position that drone strikes should not be used on American soil against Americans suspected of terrorism. Just 13 percent say it would be okay.
Americans also don’t support drone strikes against any suspected terrorist on American soil (25 percent support, 66 percent oppose) or against U.S. citizens suspected of terrorism abroad (41 percent support, 52 percent support).
MORE:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...drone-attacks/
Great, they'll just use Apache helicopters or A-10s to kill them.
Or, you know, bullets.
Win-win.
A 50-Point Swing Against Targeted Drone Killings of U.S. Citizens
http://www.slate.com/blogs/weigel/20..._citizens.html
even a blind squirrel finds a nut
Good for Obama. The killer backed down to Rand.
Barry probably smoked a J with that memo
So?
Does he sound unreasonable?
Little bit of a flip flop from his drone filibuster don't you think?
I think this is a good thing, personally. I'd like to delay drones being used on American soil unless necessary. (Note: I'd be ok with drones being used in response to an attack that already occurred, but I wouldn't be ok with drones just hovering around and taking video of everything.)
Now, if Rand REALLY wants to impress me, he'll get the American public to change their stance on supporting torture...
Definitely. His twoofer base is going to be pissed.
Yemeni Activist Tells Senators that Drone Strike on His Village 'Empowers Militants'
During a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on drones yesterday, a Yemeni activist and writer testified about the “human costs and consequences of targeted killing by the United States in Yemen.”
Farea Al-Muslimi described how his home village of Wessab fell victim to a U.S. drone strike just six days before yesterday’s hearing. He said many of the farmers had no idea that the intended target, Hameed Meftah, also known as Hameed Al-Radmi, posed a threat to their “poor village.”
“The people in my village wanted Al-Radmi to be captured, so that they could question him and find out what he was doing wrong so they could put an end to it. They still don’t have an answer to that question,” Al-Muslimi explained. “Instead, all they have is the psychological fear and terror that now occupies their souls. They fear that their home or a neighbor’s home could be bombed at any time by a U.S. drone.”
http://www.alternet.org/world/watch-...tter830073&t=3
the Global War on Terror creates its own enemies.
Boston bomber says they bombed to protest American wars on Muslims, aka blowback, and "Why Th3ey Hate U.S."
Actually no, and people who actually paid attention to the filibuster would know this.
That was my problem with his filibuster was that although a very great thing and well deserved praise, I didn't think he was critical enough on drone use as a whole. He mentioned our horrible use of them overseas, but kept it mostly about Americans without due process on US soil. I wanted more, but still, he did more than anyone else, so he deserves credit for bringing it to light when not even Democrats would.
During his filibuster and in interviews before and after the filibuster he said numerous times that he is OK with using a drone on an American on US soil, if they are an "imminent threat" actually attacking someone with a weapon. He said this many times back then and can be found in youtubes everywhere.
In the current interview he said he had no problem with a drone being used on a guy running out of a store with a GUN/WEAPON and cash. That is consistent with his filibuster, even though you guys want to believe otherwise.
As for me personally, I am against drones in the US, PERIOD, so I don't agree with his stance 100%, but no, he did not flip flop, just to keep the facts straight.
In fact I wish he did flip flop and just became extremely vocal against drones in America and it's illegal use overseas, 100%.
"The answer is an unequivocal no" on the question of whether Paul has changed his position, the judge said. Napolitano then outlined the legal details at play, explaining that Paul objects to the government's argument that drones can be used against a U.S. citizen suspected of terrorism "without due process."
Judge Napolitano On If Rand Paul Changed Position On Drones: "Answer Is An Unequivocal No"
I think we should let Obama have his drones and us have our assault weapons. Case Closed. I dont give a **** if you're america or not if I catch you in my house or vandalizing my property you arnt getting a fair trial before i unload two 15 round magazines into you.
Well Rand was against drone killing American citizens so to keep his stance he'd have to restrict torturing of American citizens.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
