March 7, 2013, - 5:08 pm

Rand Paul’s Phony Grandstanding Echoes HAMAS CAIR/Iran on Drones; Hands Off Nidal Malik Hasan, Jose Padilla & Adam Gadahn?

By Debbie Schlussel

This morning, open Jew-hater and agent of Iran and Hezbollah, Imam Hassan Qazwini–leader of the largest mosque in North America (bought and paid for by Iran)–criticized the Obama drone policy against American terrorists on the Detroit radio show of pan-Arabist, HAMAS CAIR-lover Frank Beckmann. That’s because he knows it will be used against the Adam Gadahn Al-Amrikis, Nidal Malik Hasans, John Walker Lindhs, Anwar Awlakis, and Jose Padilla a/k/a Abdullah Al-Muhajirs of this world. And Rand Paul–and now most of the gushing group unthinkers of the right–agree with this known agent of the government of Iran.

If You’re With Him on Drones, You’re With Them, Too . . .

randpaulcair

Rand Paul & HAMAS CAIR

qazwinifadlallah2.jpg

Imam Hassan Qazwini (right) Hangs w/ His Buddy Hezbollah Spiritual Leader Sheikh Mohammed Hussein Fadlallah (left)

If you whine that an America citizen shouldn’t be killed by a drone without a trial–as many of the so-called “conservatives” who are criticizing Obama over this–then I suppose you sided with the ACLU and the terrorists’ lawyers who said that Jose Padilla a/k/a Abdullah Al-Muhajir should not be held in Gitmo or tried in a military tribunal, merely because he was born here. So where were all these “conservatives” then? But they are all lockstep Paulistinians (and unwitting allies of Palestinians) now. And here’s an FYI: Rand Paul’s speeches on the floor of the Senate last night about drones against American citizens echo the op-eds by open Jew-hater, convicted criminal, and extremist HAMAS CAIR Michigan chief Delano Anthony Willis, Jr. a/k/a Dawud Walid.

I’ve always said that the members of the lumpenconservatariat are as plentiful, ignorant, gullible, and easily fooled as their left-wing counterparts. There are ObamaPhone users and Rand Paulbots. Same diff. And their non-stop gushing and beatification of Rand Paul for his filibuster over the Obama drone policy (which was NOT different than the Bush drone policy) is Exhibit A of that. No one has been more critical of the Obama administration than I have or the fact that it wants to take away civil liberties. But using drones against Islamic terrorists who happen to have been born in America is not a policy that anyone with any common sense and/or concern for national security should be droning on about.

It’s no coincidence that the “conservative” position against drone use against American terrorists is not just Rand Paul’s and Sean Hannity’s and Rush Limbaugh’s position. It’s HAMAS CAIR’s position and that of Iran. Imam Qazwini does Iran’s and Hezbollah’s bidding. And, now, so are Rand Paul and his legions of blind, idiotic gushing fans on the right. And like HAMAS CAIR and Qazwini they oppose drone strikes on U.S. citizens like Awlaki abroad, as they were all over the airwaves two weeks ago on that (with Vannity proudly proclaiming, “I’m with the ACLU on this!”).


Rand Paul is a phony and a grandstander who fantasizes that he’ll be President (something that will, thankfully, never happen to America). He achieved nothing with his filibuster, other than to provide aid and comfort to the ACLU and Islamic terrorists who take advantage of birthright citizenship to try to kill us. In the end, John Brennan was confirmed as CIA Director despite the Paulistinian all-nighter filibuster. And don’t forget that this phony, Rand Paul, also voted for Chuck Hagel for Secretary of Defense after a waste of time, phony “block” on his nomination, which achieved nothing because, as with this, Rand Paul wasn’t actually serious about stopping anything. His filibuster was as sincere and genuine as Hezbollah fan Jihad Darrell a/k/a Darrell Issa’s phony grandstanding on Fast and Furious which did what exactly?

While I do believe that Rand Paul is a like-father-like-son loon when it comes to having multiple orgasms over scorched earth libertarianism, what’s the excuse for the so-called conservatives who all embraced this crazy like a fox Senator from Kentucky? They’re simply partisans with zero principles.

If conservatives were so principled about American due process and a trial before execution by drones, where were they on a trial before a jury on American soil, when the Bush Administration was seeking a military tribunal on Gitmo for Padilla/Al-Muhajir who was trying to obtain a dirty bomb to murder countless Americans? And why were all these conservatives on the opposite side of the same issue when they were rightfully opposed to Obama shutting down Gitmo and trying hardened Islamic terrorists on U.S. soil in our federal courts? Was it really the distinction without a difference of where the Islamic terrorists were born that concerned conservatives, rather than that these are men bent on our mass destruction? If it was the former, then they should have shouted ad nauseam about the rights of the American Taliban Johnny Walker Lindh and the rights of Anwar Al-Awlaki and his son, both of whom were executed by Obama drones without a trial by Obama. Perhaps we should have let the Awlakis live to breed and mentor more Undie-Bombers, Fort Hood Shooters, and 9/11 hijackers (Awlaki helped the 9/11 guys).

And what about Nidal Malik Hasan? He’s a U.S. citizen. If a drone could have wasted him before he killed 13 Americans, would Rand Paul oppose it? Yup. Would conservatives be gushing over him then? Well, many of them have been rightfully screaming and shouting about the rights afforded to this terrorists scumbag and the fact that he’s yet to be tried. They’re simply hypocrites and frauds to side with this libertarian madman and HAMAS CAIR and Imam Qazwini on this absurdity.

Remember, if you support Rand Paul and oppose the Obama administration on drones, then you also oppose the Bush administration policy, which was exactly the same.

So, where were you during the multiple years of Bush policy on Americans at Gitmo without a trial and Bush use of drones?

Suddenly the shrill, phony partisan whines are crickets chirping.

Hypocrites.

This isn’t about Constitutional rights. It’s about blind partisanship and American suicide.

Decide which side you are on: the side of Rand Paul, HAMAS CAIR, Iran, and Islamic terrorists bent on destroying us . . . or America’s side.

You can’t be both.

***

If your position is that drones can be used to kill Americans who are not Islamic terrorists but conservatives, then why didn’t you have that same argument against the Patriot Act, Gitmo, and so on. Everything that can be used against Islamic terrorists can essentially be used against you and me if they don’t like our political views. So where were you when Bush used wiretaps without notice or FISA approval, SWIFT bank account data, drones, and so on? If you’re against Obama on drones on civil liberties grounds, you had to be against the stuff Bush did for eight years to (barely) fight Islamic terrorism.

Related Posts with Thumbnails
Print Friendly



Tags: , , , , ,

109 Responses

There seems to be something about ‘drones’ that sets people off. Paul, opportunist that he is, has noticed this.

Many people have become upset about the use of drones in Pakistan, as well. I think the driving force is hatred of the United States, and a desire to see our country fail, just as they were opposed to SDI. The Republicans think they are being clever, applying a ‘conservative twist’ to this hostility, but as you say, they are just making fools of themselves.

Little Al on March 7, 2013 at 5:43 pm

Deb, I happen to like Ron Paul and some of his view. You are entitled to your position, and I respect that. But I do wonder if there are any politicians that you do like?

max on March 7, 2013 at 5:50 pm

    This is one thing I simply love about Debbie … she can despise both sides equally well and back it up. I think it’s a symptom of a high IQ and a clear, independent mind. (Apologies, Debbie, if that’s a mistaken perception)

    Personally, my belief is that the only real weapons against Islamism are clear, resolute, unflinching mindedness. It seems obvious to me that politics, religion, economics, etc. will not save us. Clinging to any politician, left or right, is childish. They are in it for their own self interest.

    Thanks, Debbie, for being more courageous than the vast majority of men in this country.

    Pray Hard on March 8, 2013 at 10:10 am

    Max … I was wondering the same thing. Very seldom do I see anything other than negative comments from Debbie.

    Lucy on March 8, 2013 at 1:39 pm

      Lucy & Max, in lieu of asking DS if there is anyone she likes you should read her (or any other person’s thoughts, opinions and relaying of FACTS) REASONS WHY and start your research there.

      THAT is where your answers are. That is where the truth lives.

      Don’t get lost in anything but the FACTS. Like her or not, that’s what DS delivers.

      Skunky on March 8, 2013 at 4:10 pm

Um, wrong.

This issue is: Can the President initiate an extrajudicial execution of an American citizen on American soil without due process for the “accused”?

The answer of course is no. Unless you, Ms. Schlussel don’t think the 5th and possibly the 14th Amendment are to be ignored. Does that mean there are no exceptions? I believe so, but a “clear and dangerous” threat MAY be sufficient to override an absolute prohibition. In fact, since the Posse Comitatus Act prohibits the national military from preforming police actions within the United States, drone strikes, which are military, should also be prohibited. But that is the question that is to be addresses by serious thinkers.

This is a serious issue that apparently you feel the need to trivialize. I await your serious and thoughtful response.

FK: Thanks, ACLU/HAMAS CAIR lawyer. Good to know that if Nidal Malik Hasan was wearing a bomb instead of heading to Fort Hood with a rifle, you’d be against using a drone on him, b/c it’s better to protect his rights and allow him to murder 13 Americans. See, that’s EXACTLY the type of exception that Eric Holder was talking about. This isn’t about the frequent or common use of drones to kill Americans. It’s about the few exceptions. Since you acknowledge there are, indeed, exceptions, you just undermined everything you just wrote. Rand Paul wants absolutely NO exceptions. To him, Nidal Malik Hasan deserves the same rights we do and so does Jose Padilla with his dirty bomb (by your logic and that of the ACLU lawyers defending him against the Bush admin, those same Constitutional rights applied to Padilla and he should not have been kept in Gitmo or tried before a military tribunal, so why weren’t you screaming about Bush trying to do that?). And, FYI, neither the Constitution nor the Amendments you cited nor any applicable case law makes any distinction about whether or not the drones are used on US soil. The rights in the Constitution apply to all U.S. citizens no matter where they reside. Therefore, you clearly opposed the Obama drone strike kills of Anwar Al-Awlaki and his son because, after all, they are American citizens. (That’s Rand Paul’s and HAMAS CAIR’s express view.) So, you preferred we spare them and allow them to mentor more Nidal Malik Hasans, UndieBombers, and 9/11 hijackers. Mazel Tov! DS

FrenchKiss on March 7, 2013 at 5:53 pm

    correction: Unless you, Ms. Schlussel DO think the 5th and possibly the 14th Amendment are to be ignored

    FrenchKiss on March 7, 2013 at 6:02 pm

      Its not always possible to apply due process in every instance – especially where the evidence is overwhelming someone is going to kill a lot of innocent people.

      I prefer to see the Islamic terrorist dead first than Americans.

      NormanF on March 7, 2013 at 6:34 pm

      Frenchkiss:

      You might actually look at the Fifth Amendment and the case law behind it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fifth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

      By your logic law endorcement would be unable to kill a “Suspect” who was engaged in hostage taking, since that person did not have an opportunity to defend themselves in a court of law. Americans who migrated over to Germany to fight for the Nazis would have to be accorded the same rights. You probably would have sympathized with those lovely Wehrmacht soldiers who impersonated American military personnel during the Battle of the Bulge. Guess who they were for the most part? What do you think became of them? If you take up arms against the United States, you do forfeit your rights. If you want to hang your hat on Rand Paul, you hang your hat on an antisemite and someone who turns even a blinder eye to domestic terrorism than Barack Obama. Also, as Debbie noted, Rand Paul voted to confirm Chuck Hagel recently. That was a confirmation that it would have made sense to block. Instead, Rand Paul decided to engage in boring dinner theater with the Brennan nomination for CIA Director. By making Barack Obama and Eric Holder seem sane and rational, what has Rand Paul accomplished? Rand Paul and his father remind me of the John Birchers who dogged conservatives for years until William F. Buckley publicly repudiated their support for segregation and insane conspiracy theories. The John Birch Society still exists. You may wish to hang out around those folks.

      Worry01 on March 7, 2013 at 10:10 pm

        You’re an idiot. Hostage taking is not a legal reason to use military force. That’s what police are for. Duh.

        FrenchKiss on March 8, 2013 at 1:40 pm

    I pointed this out myself.

    As much as I dislike Obama, Eric Holder is correct and is a lot smarter than Rand. I’m in favor in of protecting this country and sometimes legal and judicial remedies don’t always suffice to protect American citizens.

    Its moral and just to kill the bad guys regardless of whether or not they carry a US passport or whether or not they are inside or outside the country – when they seek to commit mass murder. There are always exceptions to the rule.

    Many on the Right like you are so rabidly opposed to Obama to the point that you won’t support him in the few instances he genuine;y tries to protect this country for selfish partisan reasons. You prefer to blindly side with Paul than stand up for this country. Conservative demagoguery deserves to be roundly denounced as much as demagoguery from the Left.

    And I won’t support giving Islamic terrorists a pass from a drone strike simply because they happen to be in America.

    NormanF on March 7, 2013 at 6:16 pm

    Thanks for putting words in my mouth! Mazel Tov to you too.

    “Since you acknowledge there are, indeed, exceptions, you just undermined everything you just wrote”

    Wrong again. I said quite clearly that there are exceptions, but what those exceptions are depend on context, such as, a clear and present danger. But who defines that? Apparently, IN YOUR OPINION COUNSELOR, its okay if a single person with no constitutional authority calls in a military “drone strike”.

    Rand Paul wants absolutely NO exceptions

    Nope. He wanted a clear statement on the policy.

    And, FYI, neither the Constitution nor the Amendments you cited nor any applicable case law make any distinction about whether or not the drones are used on US soil.

    Never said anything about drone “usage”. And drones are a specific case of the general question: Does the President have the legal authority to kill Americans on American soil without due process? The answer is no. Maybe you missed the class on the Constitution that talked about that. Or about the Posse Comitatus Act, which clearly states that the military cannot be used to enforce U.S. law, let alone kill someone.

    So, you preferred we spare them and allow them to mentor more Nidal Malik Hasans, UndieBombers, and 9/11 hijackers.

    Really Ms. Schlussel, I said that? LOL! Actually, what I am in favor of is intercepting/spying/stopping all potential terrorists, that are American citizens planning attacks on American soil, with the local police/FBI/CIA.

    Using your pretzel logic, suppose a particularly religious muslim becomes the president (besides obama), and decides he’d like to kill someone he believes to be a “terrorist”. And that person is a Jewish woman who lives in Michigan. Last name is Schlussel. I bet you wouldn’t be so quick to give that person the power over your life. You really should think of the long term consequences.

    FrenchKiss on March 7, 2013 at 7:48 pm

      “Does the President have the legal authority to kill Americans on American soil without due process? The answer is no. Maybe you missed the class on the Constitution that talked about that. Or about the Posse Comitatus Act, which clearly states that the military cannot be used to enforce U.S. law, let alone kill someone.”

      FK, because you have a history of abusive and psycho postings, people are understandably dismissive of you. Here, I think you have half a point, though I am reluctant to grant you this.

      The president DOES have the power to act without due process to interfere with a threat that is in progress. You have made this point yourself, so it’s dizzying that you are now fuzzing up this point. This power is certainly not limited to the president. But true, only the president could use military hardware like drones–today.

      Further, Posse Comitatus DOES allow congress to authorize the use of the military for certain domestic purposes. It’s just that the prez can’t assume this power unilaterally.

      However, the congress did NOT authorize military means against American citizens domestically, so far as I know.

      Not only that, but the pro-Muslim behavior of our politicos shows clearly that they are not fighting a war on the domestic front. In that case, there can no justification for weapons of war controlled by the prez or the military. They demonstrate no urgency, and therefore there is no basis for suspending due process.

      There is another issue that distinguishes Obama from Bush: Bush did not regularly demonstrate a contempt for the separation of powers or the constitution. Obama has. Obama should therefore not be given extraordinary means domestically.

      skzion on March 10, 2013 at 4:28 am

    Well, I’ve been slowly puzzling out my position.

    My ONLY problem with Obama using drones abroad is that by killing terrorists we may be missing out on capturing them, waterboarding them, and gaining info we can use to stop future terror attacks. That does NOT negate the use of drones; it only speaks to using them solely.This applies to other assassination v. capture situations as well. For example, capturing and squeezing Bin Laden might have been useful before we killed the mother, IF it was possible to do.

    Now, Rand Paul did vote against Brennan and filibustered against him, which is good as Brennan is a scumbag. But the concept that we would be using drones to kill US citizens who were not engaged in planning or carrying out criminal acts of terrorism on US soil is absurd. Should these things happen, the outrage would be stunning. Further, Rand voted FOR Hagel, which points out that his position on America’s defense posture is confused.

    The basic problem with the Pauls is that they simply do not recognize something very OBVIOUS—there are NO defense forces in the world that can intervene for Western values on a significant scale besides us. Yes, Israel punches well above its weight, and is definitely worth the $3 billion in military aid we give it as a weapons platform, intelligence base, and safe port for us in the Med, but let’s get real here—only we can project power where needed, with enough power to choose a range of destruction.

    This means that we need to be very careful regarding downsizing our military as we are the only big sized good guys out there. The other 2 biggies are China and Russia, and neither are nice. India has the potential to be a goodie, but they suffer from the fact that a lot of their country is still 3rd world.There is a lot of room to argue what our methods on various aspects of the War on Islam (Oops, I mean “terror”) should be.

    But you know you have your head up your ass on an issue, as Rand Paul clearly does, if Obama is to your RIGHT on an issue; that is to say, if he is more desirous of protecting American Citizens’ safety than you are.

    As travellers to Chicago know, you should always keep the Willis Tower in front of you—if you are travelling South, you haven’t gone too far; if in the South of the city, you’re heading North (the right direction). The same goes for Barack Obama on foreign policy—always stand for a military presence more in favor of protecting America against Terrorists than what Barack Obama wants. If he’s more aggressive than you are, something is clearly wrong.

    Occam's Tool on March 7, 2013 at 10:58 pm

      OT,

      A dead Islamic terrorist by definition is not going to kill any one or mentor future Islamic terrorists.

      A drone strike reduces the strength of our enemies. Killing them is not something we have to apologize for or be ashamed of.

      The fact remains some people are far too dangerous to keep alive. Which incidentally is why we killed Bin Laden instead of putting him on trial.

      That was the correct decision back then and it remains the correct decision now.

      NormanF on March 8, 2013 at 2:58 am

Well said Ms. Schlussel, since I happen to be a facebook member, many of my conservative friends are being absolute blind morons that I can’t take engaging in having a discussion with them on this issue about Obama’s drone strikes. There kissing the feet and tripping themselves over Rand Paul, as they were fawning over Mr. Paul, I wanted to know wear we’re they when Paul help nominate Chuck Hagel to Obama’s Defense Department a few weeks ago?

Absoultely nothing, nothing but crickets and grasshoppers communicating with eachother. I distinctly had to say to some of my right wing friends on FB who’s been posting satirical photos of Obama in the same propaganda drawing photos of the drone-jets (and I’m NO fan and/or supporter of Obama, I think the man is a phony of a president), forwarding pieces and links from right-leaning sites by saying that Obama wants to kill innocent US citizens, etc., I had to completely debunk these claims by saying that the drone strikes is to target americans who denounce their US citizenship and join forces with al-qeada and other islamofascists terrorists organization who wants to see us all removed from society, etc. Either they’ve attempted to debunk what I’ve said in a rational way or ignored what I claimed in my comments!

And I don’t think none of the conservatives are going to mention that this Imam from Michigan condemns Obama’s drone strikes on his islamists sleeper-cell ilk here in the US, also CAIR agreeing with these gullible right wingers regarding the drone targets.

“A nation is defined by its borders, language & culture!”

Sean R. on March 7, 2013 at 5:55 pm

It’s a big wide world out there and it isn’t Kansas.
Don’t go play terrorist so far from home unless you want to wind up like one.
Usually I wouldn’t give a damn about this kind of drone strike but with Kerry helping the rebels in Syria I’m not so sure.

Who’s side exactly are we on now?

Supposed to just cheer that things are imploding there and welcome the Muslim Bro Hood prayer group?

Supposed to just shrug my shoulders and say oh well, the Egyptians needed those F-16s to play Top gun.

Nu uh…

As somebody said once, “I got your back but you need to watch your front…”

No doubt these are bad guys but who wants them gone all of a sudden?

Frankz on March 7, 2013 at 6:03 pm

Rand Paul’s argument was we shouldn’t have drone strikes on American soil. If you want to strike Islamic terrorists abroad, there shouldn’t be an objection to it – not that I see any one disagreeing with it.

But I think he’s wrong on seeking to impose an absolute prohibition on domestic drone strikes. There may be cases in which its prudence to shoot first and ask questions later – Islamic terrorists won’t always wait to be arrested and put on trial. In my view, its better to kill them first for our national security and the protection of US citizens. That’s only common sense.

As you correctly point out, much of Paul’s followers on the Right have lost sight of the what the drone strike policy is all about and whom its being used against. Its not like the federal government is assassinating American citizens at random – now or in the future. We have every right and the duty to protect ourselves from those who seek to harm this country.

If Rand doesn’t agree with that position, he has no business sitting in the US Senate.

NormanF on March 7, 2013 at 6:05 pm

    Actually many conservatives a few weeks ago were arguing against even drone strikes on “American-citizens” abroad.

    Laura on March 7, 2013 at 6:55 pm

i hope he was only talking about drone strikes on american soil and not drone strikes over in jihad land which is a good way to kill muslim scum.if they are in america we should kill them face to face then burn down all their mosgue with the ragheads in side.

B: The applicable distinction is whether or not the drones are used against Americans. The American soil thing is a red herring. And the fact is that Awlaki and his son were US citizens. Were we required to spare them? Rand Paul says yes. I say no. DS

bruce on March 7, 2013 at 6:10 pm

    A traitor should be summarily executed.

    A US citizen who wants to kill fellow Americans doesn’t deserve the protection of our laws or our benevolence. This is where I am against Paul.

    I put America first.

    NormanF on March 7, 2013 at 6:27 pm

      NF said: “I put America first.”

      Informed Americans say: “I put American law first.”

      Now, NF, if you don’t want to follow the laws of this country and the Constitution, by all means, have the ballz to state so. Don’t wrap yourself in the flag when its convenient.

      FrenchKiss on March 7, 2013 at 7:54 pm

        FK,

        If you supported Bush policies that infringed on civil liberties to kill terrorists, confiscate their assets and monitor their movements in this country, its a little late to criticize Obama for following exactly the same policies.

        The rule of law is important as well as our democratic freedoms but they are not a suicide pact. Debbie is correct on what she wrote here. You can’t give license to Islamic terrorists and be on America’s side at the same time! Its not possible.

        NormanF on March 7, 2013 at 8:29 pm

    The applicable distinction isn’t drones nor is it citizenship. No member of law enforcement nor the military, within the U.S., may kill anyone in any circumstances other than the same circumstances in which any person may kill another. When? When the person is killed to prevent the immediate death or injury actually threatened by the person being killed. Otherwise, arrest, grand jury indictment, trial and – if convicted and sentenced to it – a death sentence. Civil war or not, foreign invasion or not. Until and unless there is a lawful suspension of the Bill of Rights – which I would oppose as well – no person may be put to death by any agent of any government within the U.S. without the due process of law. Period. The use of drones is simply asking to injure and/or kill bystanders and is imprudent, 999 times out of 1,000, in the U.S. And bringing up drones is largely a red herring; they play and should play no role in domestic law enforcement, no more than should helicopter gunships. Overseas, where the targeted person is under arms or otherwise conducting military or quasi-military operations against American forces, yes without question, that person may be killed in the field without any due process. That is what distinguishes war from peace. That is one of the many reason the Constitution requires a Congressional declaration of war before the U.S. make conduct military operations anywhere: so that we know what rules apply where and when. To permit the government at any level to kill anyone is, in my opinion, imprudent, even as punishment for a crime. That should be left to armed citizens who kill in self-defense or in defending another. But as far as allowing the government to kill within the U.S., off of a battlefield, anyone is simply and plainly a violation of the Constitution’s guarantee of due process set out in the Fifth Amendment. No matter who are foes are, no matter how dangerous they are, we lose if we permit ourselves to become as they are: savage, unrestrained in their passions and ungoverned by any law, save that of whim and the will of the strongest.

    Ike on March 7, 2013 at 7:42 pm

      Ike,

      The circumstances are EXACTLY the same as when a SWAT squad has to kill armed dangerous suspects. The only real difference is there is a drone involved rather than heavily armed law enforcement officers and the outcome is usually the same in such a situation.

      People who threaten the lives of others can’t always be taken into custody alive. And only a moron would contend monsters enjoy privileged due process rights above every one else’s safety. If a drone strike kills a terrorist or kidnapper, I have no legal or moral problem with it. In a volatile situation, the first concern is not with the abstract letter of the law but in saving lives and defusing it.

      NormanF on March 7, 2013 at 8:24 pm

        A heavily-armed SWAT team is required not to kill out of hand and only to defend its members and any specific member of the public in danger from an armed and dangerous suspect. And the reason for that requirement is the Fifth Amendment right to due process. A drone and its missile armaments is a weapon of war and – properly for a weapon of war – has a bursting radius that varies with the warhead and particular missile, but which is not a rifle bullet. Why do you suppose there are always more folks killed by one than just the target or targets? Just as the police cannot lawfully use a tank when armed officers are sufficient, a drone cannot be used because it is never a battlefield. That is precisely the rationale used for the Ruby Ridge killings – by FBI – and the deaths of the women and children in the Branch Davidian killings – again by the FBI – in Waco. Excessive force is never justified. You do recall – do you not? – that the FBI was seeking to serve a Federal misdemeanor warrant at Waco?? There is a difference between war and law enforcement. It is not just a lawyer’s quibble. In war, any means are legitimate to engage and destroy the enemy. In law enforcement, while the police are entitled to kill in self-defense or in defense of others’ lives, they may not kill merely because it is convenient to do so. Your argument would justify using a nuclear weapon as easily as it would a drone strike. There are limits imposed on the use of force by governments and if we fail to require the government to obey those limits, we will live to regret that failure. Keep in mind, I’m not talking about the use of drones nor the killing which occurs on a battlefield. I am objecting to the use of drones and the killing which occurs all too often in law enforcement situations. The United States is not a battlefield and therefore the limits on the use of force apply. For God’s sake! if you cannot see that if the Constitution doesn’t protect us from the government’s actions here in our homeland, where does it protect us from them? Do you really trust any official not to use excessive force when he or she thinks that it is to their benefit and they can get away with it?

        I: HUH? The people at Ruby Ridge were keeping to themselves. They weren’t hurting anyone, and the FBI descended upon their compound. Absolutely NO comparison between that and Islamic terrorists (who had the accident of birth of being born here) trying to kill Americans on American soil. Not even close. And since you make the absurd comparison between apples and Mack trucks, your argument absolutely fails and fails absolutely. DS

        Ike on March 7, 2013 at 9:41 pm

          DS: You utter misunderstand my argument. The comparison with Ruby Ridge and Waco is precisely the excessive use of force in those real situations as in the hypothetical use of drones to kill law-breakers here in the U.S. and that was the point of the comparison. There is no legal or moral justification for using military levels of force in stopping people from murder; lethal force, yes, certainly. It seems to me that you fail to understand the difference between the armament fired from drones and the sidearms or rifles used by law enforcement personnel. By implication, you reject my argument that the Fifth Amendment prohibits killings of anyone on U.S. soil by any government agents without either (a) the justification of self-defense or of defense of another; or, (b) the ordinary course of civilian justice which has resulted in a death sentence. Your failure to discern what I was comparing does not invalidate my argument, which rests upon the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution which prohibits punishment without due process, which has been defined to mean (in the situations we’re arguing about) indictment by a grand jury, trial before a jury with the right to counsel and to call witnesses, a jury verdict of guilt and a jury sentence of death. Failing due process, no government authority may kill within the territory of the United States, except to protect themselves or another person (or persons) from death or bodily injury.

          Ike on March 7, 2013 at 11:15 pm

          We’re talking about pre-emptively taking out Islamic terrorists who seek to mass murder innocent Americans. Your argument is that we should wait until they have killed Americans before we can act against them. Your position is absurd from both a legal and a moral standpoint. People who plot to kill the people of this country are barbarians and are not deserving of due process of law or the mercy of a civilized people. They deserve to be stopped before they can rip the fabric of our society apart. Don’t sit there and tell us that Nidal Malik Hasan is worth more than 13 Americans he mass murdered in cold blood. If someone had slain him in the first place, those 13 people would be alive today. And putting him on trial doesn’t return to the victims of his atrocity their loved ones. With monsters who seek to kill us, the right thing to do is to make sure they can never realize their plans among us to take our very lives. That is the first and foremost duty of the government of a civilized country.

          NormanF on March 8, 2013 at 2:43 am

These drones are a curse.

The US should have the human assets to eliminate internal threats or at least detain them.
The very reason they used drones is because they’re usually associated with enemies abroad.

Now I’m sure they can give plenty of reasons as to why it was more convenient for them but the fact is these guys do all their dirty work by remote control.

Remote control killing shouldn’t be a way used as a way to distance yourself from your own population.
They’ve got bug plans for these drones.
They make everything so much easier don’t they?

Frankz on March 7, 2013 at 6:17 pm

    Drones save US lives.

    Only a moron like Rand Paul would argue its impermissible to save American lives because he wants to turn the Constitution into a suicide pact.

    That isn’t a conservative position or for that matter – even an American position to embrace.

    NormanF on March 7, 2013 at 6:23 pm

If drone strikes to take out Islamic terrorists are abroad are kosher, they should be kosher here, too. Unless you think someone intent on committing mass murder should be granted immunity from being snuffed out because he’s plotting it on American soil. That’s not my position.

NormanF on March 7, 2013 at 6:19 pm

    Norman, your have not addressed Frank’s point, which is that there is no need for military-grade weaponry to handle domestic problems.

    The reason we are even discussing this is that our politicians are not serious about securing the home front. There is NO reason why the Hassans cannot be handled via conventional law enforcement, or, if they are in the military, through the military code.

    “We” allow these Muslims to endanger us. The Constitution and its limitations is not the problem.

    skzion on March 10, 2013 at 4:18 pm

If we were to have a rebellion in this country, like the Civil war, I am sure all military resources, including drones, would be needed and would be used. Concerning our Muslim problem, wouldn’t a better solution be to not let them into the U.S. and deport the ones that are here, instead of turning the whole country into a prison, or a replica of some middle eastern country where we have troops all over the place and people with heavy weapons watching us all the time? It’s time to get real. Muslim immigration into the U.S. is not really immigration, it is an invasion. It is the beginnings of a war of conquest, being done from the inside. People are upset about drones because the government seems to be more interested in watching and repressing the average citizen than it is in going after terrorists. The few drone incidents I have read about so far involve the government watching ranchers, etc. There is foolishness like armored swat teams showing up to roust old hippies for selling raw milk. These things are the real root of what is pissing people off. I don’t see the necessity of a whole lot of drone use in the U.S. right now, except maybe on the borders, or providing security in special circumstances. Why do you need a drone for some asshole in the U.S. when all you have to do is slam him on the ground, cuff him and take him to jail. You have identified him first, of course. If they come here in any sort of military attack, most of us don’t care what kinds of weapons you use. Drones, ICBMs, death rays, whatever you need to get the job done. I think part of the problem is they aren’t making it clear when and how these drones would be used. People don’t want to be waiting for an apology from the federal government when they put a hell fire missile through the front window of their home and then discover they had the wrong house. And, who really cares if somebody in Yemen running around with an AK gets killed and it turns out he was from Milwaukee? If he wanted to be safe he would have stayed home instead of going to Yemen and hanging out with terrorists.

RT on March 7, 2013 at 6:31 pm

The fawning over Rand Paul (Ranch Paulinians) has been depressing these last few days. As I often say many “Conservatives” on Twitter mean well but it has been demoralizing that so many are so utterly clueless. I’m not saying I know more than them but on many things I do BECAUSE I read DS’ columns.

Peeps that see the truth about RP are VERY few and far between. I’ve seen a few on Twitters be cowed by the know-nothing masses (the #IStandWithRand crowd is HUGE!). Depressing.

I agree with DS’ 100% on drones overseas…here, I want to think about it more BECAUSE I don’t trust Holder and Obama-Putin (they hate the Right and loooove Jihadis…I don’t trust them AT ALL). Also, I see Islamic Jihad (due to this site) as just about the be-all, end-all in American politics today. I’ve discovered on Twitters not many share my passion and sense of urgency. It’s been more troubling to see it more due to ignorance and PC-ness in lieu of rejecting because they see (the topic) as unsavory. Even so-called “Conservatives” seem to be leery of taking on the subject with open eyes. I won’t lie…this shocks me.

I’ve learned (from Twitters) than many Conservatives get carried away with the “feeling” of the moment. You can see it in how they embrace slickster Kirsten Powers (I know she is a funny choice but she is VERY popular with Conservatives on Twitter…much, much, MUCH to my chagrin) and recently Bob Woodward. They were soooooo willing to embrace that hackneyed hack. It made me CrAzY.

I should be used to it now. It’s as predictable as 7 coming before 8.

That’s why I have been more depressed on the state of the World lately. So many don’t want to see the truth…very demoralizing. It’s one thing to scrap with the Libtard left, but we are losing when you have to (almost) de-program frickin’ so-called “Conservatives”.

Skunky on March 7, 2013 at 6:33 pm

They’re kosher abroad but they’re not kosher internally unless we’re at war with ourselves.
That’s just how I feel about it.

These are instruments of war. They are there to save the live of US service personal while we do what has to be done.

If these guys were a clear and present danger and were engaged in some kind of imminent terrorist attack then I’d condone the use of drones.
Otherwise I want them gone.
I want the administrations phony positioning gone too, and I want them gone.
I wouldn’t trust them with a bunch of cherry bombs.

They’ve been a non-stop disaster with every engagement they’ve orchestrated from day one.

Do you think they’re destroying the military and investing in these g*d forsaken drones because they have a thing for remote control aircraft?

Frankz on March 7, 2013 at 6:38 pm

I’ve never understood people who support US action against foreign terrorists, but want due course if they happen to be US citizens. What’s so sacrosanct about US citizens if they happen to be on the same side as our enemies?

As an example, why was the Yemeni prisoner @ Gitmo, who happened to be a US citizen (I forget his name – was it Anwar Alwiki?) treated any differently from his fellow inmates? He was no different from them, and the fact that his parents gave birth to him while in the US was just an accident – none of them had/have any allegiance to the US. So traitors to the US should be treated no differently than enemy combatants. The Rosenbergs look like patriots in comparison to them.

Infidel on March 7, 2013 at 6:39 pm

@Norman, that’s just how I feel right now Norman.

Frankz on March 7, 2013 at 6:39 pm

Its a damn shame that all Debbie Schlussel can do is write about policy when she should be making it.

We can always dream.

I_AM_ME on March 7, 2013 at 6:41 pm

So I guess if Debbie doesn’t stand with Rand, she stands with Obama/Bush/McCain/Graham.

Kim on March 7, 2013 at 7:00 pm

    Kim, I guess that you do not give much thought to anything, if you think this is simply a for and against matter. It takes a level of maturity and intelligence to support a correct policy, whether or not you like the person or persons implementing it. Rand Paul and his father Ron have been notorious antisemites, have advocated radically reduced defense spending and the termination of virtually all American obligations abroad. Those stances are indistinguishable from positions taken by the far left, including Marxists and Anarchists. Advocating tax reform and a lighter regulatory burden in no way makes up for these glaring public policy deficits. In fact, many Libertarians, which Rand Paul actually is, have trouble with many forms of law enforcement.

    Worry01 on March 8, 2013 at 1:42 am

Debbie is about the only conservative in the entire blogosphere who brings sanity to this issue.

Laura on March 7, 2013 at 7:13 pm

@Kim, not sure if what you said relates to me but it doesn’t have anything to do with Rand, it’s not even a Republican vs Democrat thing. Doesn’t mean I don’t support everything Debbie does.

This administration is out to wreck us and I’m tired of getting wound up like a clock work toy.
We should feel about Obama the same way his supporters felt about Bush.
Obstruct, obstruct, obfuscate, obstruct, FUD bomb, obstruct.
Anything else is madness.
What are they going to do? Call us unpatriotic?

Why weren’t these guys detained and interrogated by the oh so humane administration?
What information did we lose?
Who made this decision?

Just because Iran can get mileage out of this and say it upsets them doesn’t mean they aren’t snickering behind closed doors.

Frankz on March 7, 2013 at 7:21 pm

Agree with Skunky. I feel the same way as you do. Rand Paul’s vote for Hagel was because he loves to hate Jews (snubbed Bibi just like Obama did) . Foolish conservatives, including Glenn Beck,fawned over Rand Paul man-crush like. Do they all have ADD memories? I read that Rubio voted for Brennan! Is that true? Brennan reportedly was duped (victim of saudi counter intelligence) into converting to Islam and he later called Jerusalem by the muslim name for it. Now he is the head of the CIA! Enemies of America now run America! The people, aware or unaware, are in danger. They have been abandoned by their representatives. And conservatives are busy being distracted with a childish enthusiasm by anti-Semitic liars like Rand Paul.

Cat K on March 7, 2013 at 8:10 pm

    Cat K, I am pretty sure someone on my Twitters feed *subtweeted* (Subtweets annoy me! I’m not sure I understand them & they are confusing!) that Rubio tweeted he voted for Brennan’s confirmation. Like 7 on 8.

    I should have looked for myself but I confessed I was annoyed and couldn’t bare to look. But at least the sub-tweeter was doing it to show what a fricken’ tool Rubio is!!

    Skunky on March 7, 2013 at 9:41 pm

Who gives a damn about Rand Paul’s vote on Hagel? Or his whacko father?

The issue is whether or not we are a Nation of Laws or a Nation of Men?

Well, c’mon all you “true patriotic conservatives”, what’s the answer?

FrenchKiss on March 7, 2013 at 8:14 pm

We are a nation of laws but no policy can ever be absolute.

This has to be evaluated on a case by case basis and every case is unique. We cannot foresee when the need for a drone strike might arise here so I do not rule it out.

NormanF on March 7, 2013 at 8:32 pm

@FrenchKiss_my_ass

We’re a nation of men/women, Laws are just ink on paper without people of integrity to uphold their intent.

It’s a common liberal fallacy to believe that ideals have some existence outside and apart from the individuals that hold them.

If you made that mistake then I don’t blame you, it could be a fault in your education. Liberals have screwed that up too.
Just like everything else they touch eventually turns to crap.
Even in America.

So understanding that it should be incredibly obvious to you that Hagels nomination has a direct baring Rand Paul’s judgment and quality as a senator.
I won’t go into all the reasons Hagel is an imbecilic anti-semitic Elmer Fudd because you’re a liberal and I know you don’t care.

Frankz on March 7, 2013 at 8:40 pm

    You’re an idiot. So because I want the U.S. laws obeyed I’m a liberal?!?!? Your head is firmly stuck up your ass.

    FrenchKiss on March 8, 2013 at 1:42 pm

guy put me off my fries Norman…
Aytollah attorneys always make me nauseous

Frankz on March 7, 2013 at 8:53 pm

I don’t care about the drone attacks but I DO care that John Brennan is a Muslim convert.

lexi on March 7, 2013 at 9:31 pm

    Lexi, I am convinced that bastard Brennan IS a Moooooslim convert. He does not spew Islamic um-gala-gala like a Dhimmi because he is a true believer and his sicko passion shines thru’.

    USA is in trouble. I’m amazed at the amount of peeps in denial.

    Skunky on March 7, 2013 at 9:52 pm

Some of the comments made on your Rand Paul post were quite bizarre. If an American takes up arms against the United States, they forfeit any protections afforded a citizen. I could go back to the War of Independence(1776-1783), and cite the fate of Loyalists(British Sympathizers) as an example. Leaving the eighteenth century and the War of 1812 behind, we encounter the American Civil War. You had a situation where Southern politicians, plantation owners, and other assorted agitators engaged in increasingly disloyal behavior towards the United States in word and deed(attempts to annex Cuba and make it a slave state, etc.). These efforts paved the way for secession and the formation of the Confederate States of America. After the defeat of the Confederacy, those states which succeeded faced twelve years of ¨Reconstruction” before being deemed worthy of full membership in the United States of America again. We could go on to cite the First and Second World Wars in which many Americans left their homeland to serve the Kaiser, or later on Adolph Hitler. These ¨Americans¨ were not accorded special treatment. In fact, they were rightly viewed as traitors at the time.

Rand Paul stands in the shoes of Jefferson Davis. Jefferson Davis served the United States as Secretary of War and as a U.S. Senator. He actually was a more capable and distinguished individual than Rand Paul. However, all of this meant nothing after Mr. Davis became the President of the Confederate States of America. At the end of the Civil War, he was fortunate not to be hung.

Worry01 on March 7, 2013 at 10:33 pm

Debbie I always enjoy a bit of political theater. I’m not sure what RP wanted but in the end he undermined Obama, and that is good. And if we have to agree with either Sean Hannity or John McCain is there really a correct answer? Debbie please pm me your cell phone #, several current pictures, and 10 things you like about me. Thanks.

A1 on March 7, 2013 at 10:52 pm

Alleged conservatives using the arguments of the far left on the drone issue are not really conservatives. It is time for them to do a self-inventory of what they actually believe. I consider most Libertarians to be nothing more than leftists who want low taxes. Even the Beetles whined about the tax man.

Worry01 on March 8, 2013 at 1:07 am

I get the feeling that the majority of conservative patriotic people are in support of what Rand Paul did with the filibuster, and support most of his positions, including his position on drones. Most of these people are not experts in all political matters, But they are interested in and involved in politics, concerned about their liberty and rights, and are quite a bit more informed than the “low information voter” or the average Obama voter. Most of the Ron Paul supporters came from this bunch, and from talking with them, I found that most of them were ignorant of Ron Paul’s position on Israel, and that a few didn’t care. It was Ron Paul’s position on Israel that caused many of my friends, and myself, not to support him. People are in an uproar about these drones right now, and, it might take a little while for the drama to settle down and for them to listen to reason. I am not totally against the use of drones, but I don’t trust the government, and believe that those bastards need to be watched closely.

RT on March 8, 2013 at 1:25 am

RT,

The Right has its share of idiots. A moment’s reflection would tell people our enemies shouldn’t be given the benefit of the doubt. That’s particularly true when they’re US citizens. Their status only compounds the nature of their offense. Rand says monsters like Awlaki and Gadahn should be given protection b/c they were born in this country. That’s something I believe they shouldn’t get when they openly declare they want to kill the rest of us.

NormanF on March 8, 2013 at 2:31 am

    Norman, Rand Paul and his daddy fly under a false flag. Libertarians are not conservatives apart from some economic issues.

    Let them speak for themselves: http://www.lp.org/platform

    They love open borders. Libertarians feel that there should be no constraints on even late term abortions. This part also is apparently of the opinion that the United States should abrogate mutual defense pacts and other treaties legally entered in to if they represent entangling alliances. We tried that most recently from 1919 to 1939. If the United States had persisted in such policies past 1939, we would have been facing Imperial Japan and the Third Reich all alone. The United States would have also faced a threat from South of the Border, due to the pro-fascist governments in Latin America, such as Brazil, Argentina, Chile, and Paraguay. The United States would have slowly withered on the vine as a helpless and hopeless power that would eventually be incapable of defending itself.

    Worry01 on March 8, 2013 at 3:18 am

      Worry,

      Few Americans take libertarians seriously. Their argument is we should withdraw from the world and have government as weak as possible so it can’t infringe on our liberties. The problem conservatives have with it is the world won’t leave us alone and as we learned from the fall of Rome – the Dark Ages deprived people of freedom and security that wasn’t regained for several hundred years. That a path we resolutely must never take if America is to survive.

      NormanF on March 8, 2013 at 3:26 am

    Why don’t you address the real issue? Killing American citizens when they have joined enemies of the U.S. is perfectly legal (says so in the U.S. Code). However, LAW ENFORCEMENT is used to stop criminal activity when American citizens on American soil are engaged in such activity. This has been true since the founding of this country. THE ONLY time the national military can be used is to stop an invasion by an enemy army or combatants acting in cooperation with that army. That’s also case law, regardless of what Schlussel says, she knows nothing of Constitutional law or any laws that apply in this case. Don’t know where she went to law school, but her law degree sounds like she mailed in a check to get it.

    FrenchKiss on March 8, 2013 at 1:57 pm

    “A moment’s reflection would tell people our enemies shouldn’t be given the benefit of the doubt.”

    Norman, I have not posted on this issue yet because I didn’t have time to do so carefully. Your statement reminds me of the one from feminists who talk of “blaming the victim,” a slogan that implies what is yet to be proven: that a rape actually occurred and that, therefore, a victim exists.

    We have procedures to determine who specific enemies are, and domestically we have the means of punishing these enemies. In foreign lands we lack such means. In addition, a American Muslim citizen in, say, Afghanistan, is, ipso facto, consorting with the enemy.

    Now if a president were pursuing the Muslim enemy abroad and preventing him from arriving here, if the domestic Muslim menace were being combatted seriously, I could imagine a legislature giving extraordinary means to a president, for a limited time. But that’s not the issue here at all. Our traitorous government, led by our Muslim president, are making this land safe for Muslim conquest. And, after facilitating this conquest, these political forces are trying to “fine tune” the results of their perfidy by doing an end run around the Constitution. This is unnecessary and counterproductive.

    If, as I think, we are in WW3 against Islam, we should be rounding up Muslims, not giving them posts at airports and visas. We should not be taking away American freedoms generally.

    As for Rand Paul, while I am no Paulbot, I side with him in his theatrical efforts to make Hussein’s powergrabbing a matter of public controversy. His action was the senatorial equivalent of citizen nonviolent direct action. It wouldn’t surprise me if he made some deals to enable him to implement a filibuster even though there were sufficient votes for cloture. THAT would be a good political effort.

    Surely McLame’s and Miss Graham’s fury over Paul’s effort is significant. It shows that the disruption of business-as-usual in the senate has made a difference.

    Debbie suggests that if one sides with Paul one sides with the Muslim terrorists. But if one opposes Paul, does one not side with Obama, McLame, Miss Lindsay Graham, and the rest of the Religion-of-Peace forces who have put us in this rotten position? If so, do we not side with the Muslim terrorists?

    If it takes more catastrophic terrorist attacks to deal with the Muslims, so be it. All of Hussein’s unconstitutional actions will not stop these attacks–they’ll just take away our sovereignty.

    skzion on March 9, 2013 at 9:38 pm

Well, I definitely would have voted for Rand Paul if he had run against Obama last year. While he’s far from perfect, he’s a hundred times better than the dapper little Rominee that many of you (including, most likely, Schlussel herself) voted for so obediently.

Ever hear that cliche about how the enemy of my enemy is my friend? Well McCain-Graham-Romney are the enemy, and America WILL die unless McCain Republicanism goes completely t*ts-up, and soon. If Rand Paul can take it away from him, he’s got my vote.

The GOP needs a disrupting event to toss McCain out on his fat face – which he and Lindsey Graham were coincidentally stuffing at the very moment Paul began his speech.

If those two snakes are vehemently criticizing the guy, he must be doing something right. And if the GOP nominates Chris Christie or some other McCain clone in three years, then with God as my witness I will vote a straight Democrat ticket.

Sta t us MoNk ey y on March 8, 2013 at 3:08 am

    Monkey See-Monkey Do:

    Thank you for your off the curb wisdom. It may be time for you to check in at the homeless shelter. Local ordinances do not allow overnight camping at the park.

    Worry01 on March 8, 2013 at 3:30 am

      @Sorry01,

      Wow, I guess they only come out at night!

      SPEAK of the fat face of McCain Republicanism, and you magically appear. Imagine that.

      You manage to scrub that Romney tattoo off your forehead yet?

      Sta t us MoNk ey y on March 8, 2013 at 12:51 pm

I certainly don’t want someone as President who wants to keep us from having all options open against those bent on the destruction of this country.

I don’t agree with Obama but he did the right thing in having Bin Laden killed. Paul would have had him bound over for trial here lest Heaven forbid we don’t cross all our i’s and t’s first.

We have far too many eunuchs in this country and not enough men willing to do what it takes to preserve it.

NormanF on March 8, 2013 at 3:19 am

Paul’s grandstanding on drones reminds me of the leftist politicians in New York City who are seeking to handcuff the NYPD in terms of the so-called “stop and frisk” procedures they use in certain (bad) neighborhoods; just as Paul is doing HAMAS CAIR’s bidding, the NYC politicians are effectively doing the bidding of armed thugs, drug dealers, gangbangers, muggers, rapists, and other violent criminals, miscreants, malcontents, anarchists, subversives (of the “Occupy Wall Street” variety) and so on (and, come to think of it, they’re also doing the bidding of HAMAS CAIR – as they are also against NYPD counter-terror initiatives which they euphemistically call “spying on Muslims”). Or to put it another way, after their jumping on the “law and order” bandwagon in the ’90’s during the Clinton administration (since someone mentioned Ruby Ridge), Democrats have sadly backslid into the old “soft on crime” / “the muggers’ best friend” stereotypes with a vengeance (just as, with Obama and company, they’ve once more reverted to the “tax and spend” mentality that, in an earlier era, was considered a political death sentence).

ConcernedPatriot on March 8, 2013 at 3:52 am

Yo Debbie, stop lumping mainstream conservatives in with Libertarians…The latter make up a tiny percentage of voters. Wtf, did you just wake up pi$$ed off this week and decide to let loose with your case of political Tourette’s? Conservatives were mostly just thrilled that someone, ANYONE, finally stood up and displayed a set of rocks for-a-change, and no, there is a difference between blowing a U.S. citizen to smithereens in the desert of Qatar vs doing the same to someone mountain biking in Colorado.

waynesteapartyworld on March 8, 2013 at 8:04 am

Debbie, I agree with you. I also feel Rand Paul’s actions were displayed solely for political gain. However, it does not make any sense. Rand Paul is an enigma. First he is against Hagel and then he votes for him. In addition, I think the bigger issue this week should have been stopping the John Brennan nomination at all costs. Especially, since the Washington Times reported in an OP Ed article last week that Mr. Brennan had converted to Islam back in the late nineties when working for the CIA in Saudi Arabia. Since then he has done everything to undermine developing a strong US policy to fight Islamic Fascism. It is outrageous that no one is talking about this terrible conflict of interest here. It is downright treasonous! Why is our congress so gutless and spineless or do they just love the power and the money!

Rebecca on March 8, 2013 at 8:51 am

WTPW:

That is dishonest to a T. No one proposed blowing up innocent Americans. That is never going to happen in America.

Paul was grandstanding over a non-existent issue. You are a hypocrite when you join Paul in denouncing Obama for following exactly the same policies Bush pursued.

What motivates you and the Paulbots is not a concern for the Constitution and the lives of Americans but ignorance and blind partisanship.

We don’t have that on this blog for good reason.

NormanF on March 8, 2013 at 9:06 am

    Norman F

    Uhhh, I don’t feel like a ‘Paulbot’? The mountain biking example was what’s known as ‘hyperbole'; exaggerating to make a point, which is that some people find it concerning that one man, POTUS, might be able to whack a U.S. citizen, on U.S. soil, using military personnel and weapons (as opposed to domestic police agencies like FBI, etc), and without regular due process of law. Please save the hyperventilation and pejoratives for the school yard, since you-don’t-know-me-and-I-don’t-know-you. Finally, I didn’t know that Bush policy included potentially using drones in the U.S. against american citizens? Yes, everyone is ignorant on some topics, which is why I read DS columns, along with many others, to try and become better informed.

    waynesteapartyworld on March 9, 2013 at 8:57 am

Could someone help me understand some things:
If the “sticking” point is “military drones,” then why is it AG Holder answering the question? [DHS will be employing the drone(s) INCONUS]
Didn’t AG Holder say something to the effect, “American citizens not engaged in combat on U.S. soil will not be struck”? [NDAA 2012 has provisions to "ex-patriate those "accused" of "suspected terrorist activity" on the battlefield.]
Does this mean 4GW has come to the U.S.?? If “yes,” then the U.S. becomes the “battlefield,” and as such DoD has jurisdiction? So, then, ALL the JTTF money and ancillary support structures have/will fail/failed?
It is interesting that some cite Gaddan, Lindh, al-Alaki et al etc…where were these guys when dispatched/captured/engaged in terroristic speak/activity? What did they say/do/pledge allegiance to? Islam is using the 1st AMendment as a Trojan Horse no? Summary executions were/are permitted on the “battlefield” no? [Save the recent "son-of-law" of Bin Laden being "captured" argument; 2:1 he is/was an intel asset (HUMINT), and was "extracted"].
There are TOO many “coincidences” going on in this country to NOT be just simple coincidences:
DHS, and other agencies, purchasing gagillions of rounds to include millions of rounds of .40 Hollow Point [illegal for use in "warfare"]
DHS purchasing several thousand IED hardened APCs. [“…[domestic law enforcement] just as well funded, just as well equipped as our military…”] but Haigle was confirmed too?
No, I did NOT support the “PATRIOT Act,” nor do I support the NDAA of 2012 as it was signed. I do support the “system,” not in how it has been administered over the past decade. Was the Executive Order FDR signed regarding detention of U.S. citizens (Japanese/German/Italian) eventually made “law” and UPHELD by the Supreme Court when challenged? [I mean, am I just "sum po dum bumpkin?"]

Sick_Boy on March 8, 2013 at 9:11 am

This country has taken extraordinary measures against enemy aliens and suspected traitors and will again in the future.

We’re not a nation of saints but even if we were, we don’t deserve to witness Americans being murdered by those who hate this country either abroad or at home.

There should be zero tolerance for Islamic terrorism, no matter the identity of the perpetrator or where Americans might come come under attack.

NormanF on March 8, 2013 at 9:19 am

Conservatives on Facebook posted that Van Jones called Rand Paul a hero. But rather than his remark causing them to rethink their position, they were gleeful that now he has come around to their side against. How stupid can you get? In fact there is nothing out of character for Jones to take this position, it is consistent with his anti-Americanism. Do they think Van Jones is motivated by his concern for the constitution? As a communist he wants to replace the US constitution. Van Jones takes this position because he knows that a drone attack would most likely be used against a muslim terrorist.

Laura on March 8, 2013 at 11:02 am

    Laura, your point on that creepo Van Jones was excellent! I hope everyone reads what you have to say. Thanks for that. (Pats, I like your saying on RP too. Clever!)

    Worry, your points on this thread have been EXCELLENT. I hope others will make sure to read every word you say. It’s always fun to see post-ers who know what they speak of in contrast to those who *think* they do.

    ConcernedPatriot I enjoyed your thoughts too. Your reference to the 90s was very compelling because you brought it all back to me because at the time I was somewhat “Liberal” but not as much as I could have been for other reasons. Your post reflected some memories for me.

    Rebecca, I liked your post too.

    I think many on the right are so hungry for leadership (and not really privy to the facts BEHIND the facts…something DS is no matter how you feel about her) they are letting their passion overtake them. They wanna see Obama-Putin defeated but because they are woefully ignorant to some real KEY facts, they get fooled by the Rand Pauls, Van Jones, Bob Woodwards and Kirstin “Luckiest Girl In the World” Powers.

    In the end they hurt us more than help us. Some want to learn the truth but so many get their own egos (or lack of intelligence) in the way and they get mad at people who see it clearly (like DS) because they are so passionate but uninformed.

    It creates an AWFUL mess. It’s why the GOP are circling the drain now and are imploding as the Libtard Donks are enjoying the show and so far ahead.

    Skunky on March 8, 2013 at 12:23 pm

As I have said to friends and family at the time when Paul,jr. speechified after the Pres. SOTU address, “You can’t spell ‘gRANDstand’ without R-A-N-D.” Great article. I also think Grahamnesty and his daddy, Senator Lettuce, need to get back on their lithium… stat.

Pats on March 8, 2013 at 12:07 pm

“or at home.

There should be zero tolerance for Islamic terrorism, no matter the identity of the perpetrator or where Americans might come come u

Totally agree.
However, if “we” “must” employ/deploy drones INCONUS, then logic dictates that 1) “border control” has failed, 2) immigration controls have failed, 3) Public Health controls have failed, 4) “homegrown” terrorists are metastisizing [read as "European" Constitutionalists re: SPLCs most recent "hate group" report] (which the President has even said, “No criminal feels the Constitution is under attack.”), 5) the traditional FBI, ATF, DEA, and any of other alphabet soups are intrinsicly broken and unrepairable etc…
Yet, “we” “need” aerial, unmanned-soon to be autonomous [re: ATR and near AI within the drones system of systems] which will use some form of Blue Force Tracking to communicate G-2 to the COMMCTR etc…(which I believe was/is Beta tested downrange, because “we” are sheeple being led to either 1) the slaughter, or 2) the slave shed period. It appears that Lady Liberty is in HOSPICE.

Sick_Boy on March 8, 2013 at 12:23 pm

    It isn’t that we MUST deploy drones. But we should not totally dismiss out of hand the possibility of their use. You never know what scenario we may be faced with.

    Laura on March 8, 2013 at 1:03 pm

      Laura, why shouldn’t we dismiss drone use out of hand, given that all sorts of more usual–and unquestionably constitutional–means are barely being used?

      Let Hussein know that he does NOT have the power to be Commander-in-chief domestically, unless he is given this power on a limited basis, by congress.

      Look, I support the rounding up of Japanese citizens during WW2. We were in a declared war, and there WAS reason to suspect these Japanese-Americans, and we WERE using all sorts of measures to win.

      Nowadays, we let Muslims who are already tied to terrorism run our airports! OBVIOUSLY, then, the gubmint does not consider us under threat, right? Well that same gubmint can’t then claim that it should have the right to use military means domestically!

      This is about a president’s power grab, not about our security.

      skzion on March 10, 2013 at 4:34 pm

I just started to think that the whole filibuster thing may simply have been the opening of a 2016 Presidential campaign.

Not only is reading Debbie’s web site educational, but gems from her like the following (In response to an earlier comment) are absolutely delicious and another reason I read the site regularly:

“And since you make the absurd comparison between apples and Mack trucks, your argument absolutely fails and fails absolutely. DS”

I_AM_ME on March 8, 2013 at 12:47 pm

This “piece” is spendy on words and holds absolutely no substantive value. It is, merely, a smear job.

A POTUS cannot use drones on US citizens on US soil, which, Paul and many of us know. However, the hesitance of Holder in speaking for this Admin in agreement is troubling. It is troubling, because the NDAA provides for a POTUS the ability to determine the status of a US citizen as a terrorist suspect. Most of us can figure the rest out from there..

Schlussel is speaking as the “old guard”s younger booster.

As for me, I don’t have to attack Rand Paul on the basis of his father’s record. But then, no one’s buying me off to speak “my” mind.

djaz on March 8, 2013 at 1:57 pm

    “As for me, I don’t have to attack Rand Paul on the basis of his father’s record. But then, no one’s buying me off to speak “my” mind.”

    So, you’re asserting that Schlussel is bought?

    skzion on March 8, 2013 at 2:01 pm

This is a good piece. I just posted in on one of our central Fla. radio talk show Facebook page. I do not in principle have a problem with targeted killings of jihad terrorists. Israel has been doing this for many years now. Keep in mind, the U.S. often joined the Europeans in condemning some of Israel’s targeted assassinations. I guess the difference between Obama and Bush (as much as I grew to detest some of Bush’s policies, particularly when it came to Israel and to not defining the enemy) I do not trust Obama; profoundly so. It is one thing to target jihadists (even if they are American citizens overseas; fine), it seems quite another to imagine Obama doing it here on the mainland. I don’t trust this man. I worry about Obama having this kind of power. That is why I am reluctant to criticize Rand Paul even though I suspect he has much in common with his Hamas-supporting / nuclear Iran-supporting father.

Steve Klein on March 8, 2013 at 2:36 pm

@worry01

There’s no such thing as a leftist that believes in low taxes.
Doesn’t exist…

Without increased taxation there is no legitimate way for them to pursue wealth redistribution so…
that animal does not exist, my friend. I wish it did.
The idea of a low taxation leftist is akin to that of a Yeti.
An apparition, never to be verified.
Isolationists is what they are and America has a long tradition along those lines.

@NormanF

Taking out Osama’s the only thing Obama has done right for the entire joke of his presidency and he shuffled his feet so long deciding to go through with it he almost blew the whole operation.

Then he made damn sure he milked it for all the credit it was worth.
Stealing the limelight from people who actually participated in the operation.

What else was he going to do anyway, politically speaking?

If you think that buys my trust after Benghazi you’re crazy.
Whatever game Obama is playing I want no part of it.

But I have to give him this…

At least he knows that some Americans are so desperate to pretend they
still live in the America they remembered that they’ll salute him for
pretending along with them even as he destroys it.

He must wake up every morning with a big smile on his face remembering all the suckers in the world he counted jumping over fences.

@FrenchKiss_mein_ass

Although we agree on the the issue of military involvement I want to know which college professor you had to sleep with to get your degree?

Frankz on March 8, 2013 at 3:39 pm

Exceptions. Compromise. “Grey areas.” a.k.a. Not having the guts to make a tough decision.

Make up your mind. Liberty/Freedom or a totalitarian/authoritarian government? Itty bitty government, or big ole cheese giving gubmint? Your choice, but quit standing half in and half out….that’s just an unlettered philosophy. Oh and btw, don’t forget to tell your parents that they were WRONG. You know, the part about standing on your principles (which is philosophy). So many of you are sooo willing to do so when you’re scared. Quit taking counsel of your fears.

Bullet Gibson on March 9, 2013 at 10:49 am

I’m am a Christian of Jewish decent and all of you Zionist who claim to be Jews and Christians are working for the synagogue of satan. Moreover let me call out you Jewish Americas who are citizens of America reaping the benefits of this great land but yet u put Israel first? If u luv that place so much then by all means take ur Zionist ass over there and stop parading around as an American. Same goes to u so called Christians who put Israel first, go live there , please. I see Israel for what it is and that is a war mongering pig that’s uses America to fight its wars. Zionist are the most racist humans on the earth, look at what they do to Palestinians. You are the synagogue of satan Zionist, Christians wake up to these devils. Jesus said that they were of their father the devil, and he took the kingdom of God away from Israel that land meaningless. U must understand that the bible is speaking of the heavenly Jerusalem in the New Testament. Israel is no more it is a land of devils, devils with names like Rothschild. They now worship the Kabbalah.

Kevin moore on March 9, 2013 at 1:24 pm

    Screw you kevin moore, you nazi pig. May you come face to face with the islamic jihadists you are defending.

    Laura on March 9, 2013 at 3:05 pm

” those who would surrender essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty nor security”
Benjamin Franklin

Kevin moore on March 9, 2013 at 5:19 pm

If you would know the value of money, go try to borrow some; for he that goes a-borrowing goes a-sorrowing.

– Benjamin Franklin

He spits on you from the grave Kevin Moore and so do I.

Frankz on March 9, 2013 at 5:34 pm

Kevin Moore I am a PROUD Zionist.

Glad to give anti-Semitic vermin like you fits.

Have fun pal-ing up to your Moooooslim pals.

Jokes on you. Even if you were to be a Mooooslim, there is no where to run and have peace. It’s a Satanic cult that destroy their very own (in the most heinous of ways…).

Sunni vs Shia, Shia vs Sunni. There is NO RESPITE from their Satanic disfunction. EVER. The consummate fools errand. Ad infinitum.

Have fun, Sucka. Viva la Jews!!!!

Skunky on March 9, 2013 at 6:29 pm

Kevin Moore, I could not get past your 3rd sentence. No paragraphs and a crashing bore.

Who cares what you think? You’re too boring. I’m moving on.

Have fun with your Mooooooslim fiends!

Skunky on March 9, 2013 at 8:21 pm

    Couldn’t agree more, Skunky. My eyes glazed over in record time.

    skzion on March 9, 2013 at 8:35 pm

Leave a Reply

* denotes required field