Rand Paul to President Obama: Show Us the Drone Memos (NYTimes op-ed)

[jct74]

Show Us the Drone Memos

By RAND PAUL
MAY 11, 2014

WASHINGTON — I BELIEVE that killing an American citizen without a trial is an extraordinary concept and deserves serious debate. I can’t imagine appointing someone to the federal bench, one level below the Supreme Court, without fully understanding that person’s views concerning the extrajudicial killing of American citizens.

But President Obama is seeking to do just that. He has nominated David J. Barron, a Harvard law professor and a former acting assistant attorney general, to a seat on the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit.

While he was an official in the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel, Mr. Barron wrote at least two legal memos justifying the execution without a trial of an American citizen abroad. Now Mr. Obama is refusing to share that legal argument with the American people.

...

read more:
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/12/opinion/show-us-the-drone-memos.html

[francisco]

No comments at the NYT as far as I can see.

I'll be very interested to see what arguments are mounted against Rand's common-sense position.

[CaptUSA]

The rule of law exists to protect those who are minorities by virtue of their skin color or their beliefs. That is why I am fighting this nomination. And I will do so until Mr. Barron frankly discusses his opinions on executing Americans without trial, and until the American people are able to participate in one of the most consequential debates in our history.Looks like Rand is putting the Democrats in a box.

[FreedomsReigning]

Killing ANYBODY without due process deserves serious debate, and that debate should lead to the declaration of war. A legitimate declaration of war is an act of self defense which is why most wars are started by false flags.

[jct74]

Drudge picked up


http://i.imgur.com/FX9KfXf.png

[Carson]

I'm really not in favor of the spying going on but shouldn't our ■■■ have some information to share with us on this. Maybe they are the ones to ask?

[WD-NY]

Now this is more like it. Rand has staked out a perfectly triangulated position vis-a-vi this Judge's nomination.

"Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules."

#SuggestionForTeamRand - it's positions like this* that make him the only Republican who can beat Hillary Clinton. Not VOTER ID.

**going after Obama on drone assassination not only fires up conservatives (bc they agree with it + love that it puts Obama leftists in a box), but also

1. genuinely appeals to a not insignificant number of honest anti-war liberals
2. effectively demoralizes/tongue-ties all but the most blindly partisan obamabot progressives

[osan]

read more:
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/12/opinion/show-us-the-drone-memos.html

I disagree with one thing he says:


I BELIEVE that killing an American citizen without a trial is an extraordinary concept and deserves serious debate.

No, it does not. It is so repugnant, it deserves no consideration whatsoever, much less debate. What, exactly, is there to debate? With debate comes the attached, if tacit, presumption that there is possible merit. There is nothing meritorious in this idea at all. It is wicked criminality of the first order, prima facie. Debating this is like debating when it is OK to rape a child. It is never OK.

The only thing the notion merits is scorn, rejection out of hand, and a fair trial and speedy execution for anyone giving such orders, acting on them, or abetting them in any way.

I cannot imagine what Rand Paul was thinking when he said this.

[luctor-et-emergo]

Comments at the page are full of hate, or fear. Doesn't really matter which it is, but it's clear election season has begun. Haters.

Some quotes from the comments:


Al Alawki had the opportunity to surrender and stand trial in the U.S. He preferred to stay in a country where he believed he was immune from justice. The record on him is clear. He was responsible for the deaths of several American citizens.
Dangerous individual. IMO off course.


Oh this guy was an American. As far as I am concerned, he gave up his citizenship when he joined a terrorist organization in Yemen..../.....he gave up any right to a trial in an American Court.


Mr Paul also "believes" that human activity has played no part in climate change. Well belief isn't involved there, the issues are scientific and Mr Paul has no ability or credibility in his pronouncements on that issue.
What does this have to do with drones ? FEAR!

Only a hand full of comments so far though.

[carlton]

Now this is more like it. Rand has staked out a perfectly triangulated position vis-a-vi this Judge's nomination.

"Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules."

#SuggestionForTeamRand - it's positions like this* that make him the only Republican who can beat Hillary Clinton. Not VOTER ID.

**going after Obama on drone assassination not only fires up conservatives (bc they agree with it + love that it puts Obama leftists in a box), but also
1. genuinely appeals to a not insignificant number of honest anti-war liberals
2. effectively demoralizes/tongue-ties all but the most blindly partisan obamabot progressives


Agree 100%. Rand needs to stay on message and this message resonates. It will pull in the dems he is after while also building up his conservative bonafides... he's gonna have some mending to do as far as conservatives are concerned after his 1000 cuts of the last month, but it can and will be done.

[Tinnuhana]

I cannot imagine what Rand Paul was thinking when he said this.
He's probably thinking that nobody in their right mind would debate him on it; so it makes them look like they're "chickening out". The debate line works, not because he honestly thinks there should be one, but because, as already brought up, it puts the opposition in a box they don't dare leave. Can you see Rand and Putin "playing chess"?

[limequat]

You don't speak in absolutes in politics.
Paul wouldn't say, "We should never kill an American citizen without trial" because - as noted already - there are million knuckle-draggers that think we definitely SHOULD have killed Al-Alawki. That's actually a divisive issue, believe it or not.

Rands position is a better position politically. Set aside Al-Alawki for a moment. Here is Judge who authored an opinion on this that the American people are NOT allowed to read. Should we be able to have a debate on this? Should the issue be transparent?

Take a poll around the office on these two issues. One will be 70-30 for killing alawki. The other will be 90-10 for transparency.

It's framing the debate. And once again, Rand is the master.

[osan]

You don't speak in absolutes in politics.

What? Who says? It is done daily. Listen to political characters speak - I would bet half of the things they say are stated as absolutes.


Paul wouldn't say, "We should never kill an American citizen without trial" because - as noted already - there are million knuckle-draggers that think we definitely SHOULD have killed Al-Alawki. That's actually a divisive issue, believe it or not.

And so, of course, the answer is to lower the bar yet again in response to entropy's beckon?

Honestly, I would rather keep the bar high and have a civil war to settle the issue than stoop to such depths. This slow-burn into authoritarian idiocracy is appalling and endlessly tiresome.


Rands [sic] position is a better position politically.

That depends on what one's goals are. Whoring to make the capital to become a princess will leave you forever a has-been whore, at the very best.

Look at that pugnaciously cretinous woman, Oprah Winfrey. For years she hosted a show of the lowest caliber, she herself claims, in order that one day she woulld have the clout to put on a show of "her" quality. That argument is at its heart NO different than those which were used by Stalin, Mao, and Hitler, just to name two of the more beloved tyrants of the 20th century: the ends justify the means. Bull.shit.

If that is in fact the case, then I am completely and utterly justified in killing "undesirables" pursuant to my goal of a better world. This, of course, is nonsense because at the end of the day and no matter how great a world I produce, I am nothing better than a cheap murdering punk in the wake of my acts.

I have written this before and I am yet to be shown otherwise: To my eyes Rand Paul is at the very least flirting with the Oprah path to his goals. Some of the things he says or is attributed to having said are uncomfortably close to Oprah's way to the top, and it is not the good path.

If we have to become whores in violation of our supposedly most closely held principles for the sake of "winning" at some unspecified and unpromisable point in the future, then I truly believe we are better off going to war and settling this in a forthright manner. This does not make me a warmonger. It just says that everything has its limit, including the degree to which the righteous man will bend over backward to "compromise" with an implacable foe. Does anyone here for the least moment believe that the enemies of liberty are anything other than implacable; that one can negotiate with them and trust in their good faith? I am sorry, but one would have to be a high-flying idiot to believe that this would be possible in even the least thing. These people, these bitter little fear-laden, greed-driven collectivist haters of the individual have thus far shown themselves willing to stop at nothing to get what they want. They will make and then break any deal and tell any lie they think you want to hear in order to get what they want.

They are trespassers in their blood and can be nothing other than their hatefully envious, unattaining, criminal selves. They don't want some of what you have, though for now they settle for it. They want every last shred of that which is yours including your dignity - especially that - because these people are venomously self-hating devils in the flesh and are the bitter and absolutely mortal enemies of any man who values himself in the least measure. It is exactly the self-respect the righteous man holds that fuels the seething, grasping hatred that drives them, all cloaked in the false language of "the greater good" and phony baloney good intentions. For such people, self-respect is genetically beyond their reach, and if they can't have it, nobody can. This, the central pillar of the collectivist authoritarian's creed, is the grandest and most fatally virulent disease of men and it appears to be incurable, once infected. The problem is that it rarely kills the infected, but rather all those around him who remain sterile to his malady.


Set aside Al-Alawki for a moment. Here is Judge who authored an opinion on this that the American people are NOT allowed to read. Should we be able to have a debate on this?

We HAVE the ability now. That is irrelevant. The question is whether this ought to be debated in the first place. Need I state the only correct answer?


Should the issue be transparent?

It IS transparent. Opacity falls upon only those who do not know the correct answer regarding debate; those very people who at the very least tacitly paint the superficial trappings of legitimacy upon that for which it is impossible. As I wrote previously, there is nothing to discuss. There is what is right and which "we" want, but is denied, leaving "us" with the choice to either take what is ours by force, meaning war, or capitulate and confess that the thieves, frauds, debauchers, and murderers were all the while in the right.

You can keep that shit. I'm not buying.



It's framing the debate.

It isn't for me. It's about that whic is right and having the personal integrity to stick with it, come what may. That is called "courage" and it is the way of the warrior, who concerns himself not with the petty issue of winning and losing. Remember the old adage "it's not whether you win or lose; it's how you play the game"? There is great wisdom in it. If one has to stoop to get what he wants, one must question the willingness to debase himself to get it, thereby calling his character into serious question.



And once again, Rand is the master.

And how is it we should regard him if his mastery is that of a game of pestilent whores? Shall we cheer and be proud of the disciples of Oprah and seek their company, perhaps even in our beds?

If he is playing this game as I suspect he may be, then he is nothing to me. Might as well make Oprah Winfrey president because at the center of the center of things they are no different.

I would rather die as a clean man than live as filth. YMMV.

[specsaregood]

I BELIEVE that killing an American citizen without a trial is an extraordinary concept and deserves serious debate.

No, it does not. It is so repugnant, it deserves no consideration whatsoever, much less debate. What, exactly, is there to debate? With debate comes the attached, if tacit, presumption that there is possible merit. There is nothing meritorious in this idea at all. It is wicked criminality of the first order, prima facie. Debating this is like debating when it is OK to rape a child. It is never OK.

The only thing the notion merits is scorn, rejection out of hand, and a fair trial and speedy execution for anyone giving such orders, acting on them, or abetting them in any way.

I cannot imagine what Rand Paul was thinking when he said this.

That goes 2 ways. Randal was thinking that the administration is already doing it, without even the pretext of debate or consideration that the people against it have merit. His saying it deserves debate is saying that the people like you who are against it and find it repugnant have a point and deserve to be heard. To be against "serious debate" is to stay with the status quo, which means the killing continues.

[osan]

That goes 2 ways. Randal was thinking that the administration is already doing it, without even the pretext of debate or consideration that the people against it have merit. His saying it deserves debate is saying that the people like you who are against it and find it repugnant have a point and deserve to be heard.

I take your point well and can then only say that he needs to learn the fucking english language because he speaks like shit. I interpreted his words in a logically sensible way. If that is not what he meant, then he needs to learn semantic clarity. America needs precise clarity now more than ever and Rand Paul is failing at that. He can look at this as put-down, which it is not, or he can take the lesson from a guy who has been around longer than he and whose career has turned largely on semantic analysis. If he is a good guy, and my personal jury is still out on that question, he needs to show the world by being precise, clear, and truthful in everything he says because the future of this land could hinge on it. I have been giving him the benefit of the doubt so far, but have been coming up disappointed more often than otherwise.

If he needs a coach, I volunteer. He doesn't even have to pay me, but he WOULD have to listen. Oh, and I want to be secretary of state. :)


To be against "serious debate" is to stay with the status quo, which means the killing continues.

If by "stay with" you mean "accept", I disagree. If you mean that the status quo remains unchallenged, yes that is true. However, challenging it in verbal debate is but one way of addressing the issue. The other is to materially remove the bad actors, possibly putting them on the ends of ropes in the process or removing them with lead therapy, if need be.

[Lucille]

Drone Lawyer: Kill a 16-Year-Old, Get a Promotion
http://antiwar.com/blog/2014/05/15/drone-lawyer-kill-a-16-year-old-get-a-promotion/


But the Senators should go further and state that David Barron is simply not fit to sit on the bench to interpret our Constitution.

In the hopes of moving our nation back to one that respects, honors and upholds the rule of law, we are pushing the Senate – particularly Majority Leader Harry Reid – to kill Barron’s nomination. Senator Rand Paul is one of the few Senators challenging Barron’s nomination. “I can’t imagine appointing someone to the federal bench, one level below the Supreme Court, without fully understanding that person’s views concerning the extrajudicial killing of American citizens,” he wrote.

Unfortunately, now that the administration has placated Senators by giving them access to Barron’s memos, he will most likely be be confirmed. There is one good thing that could come out of this, though – the sparking of a much-needed national conversation about drone warfare and U.S. policy on the use of killer drones. Does the use of drone strikes that often hit innocent people and incite hatred towards Americans actually ensure our safety, or trigger greater danger? In the meantime, we should urge our Senators to push for the public release of these classified drone memos and should oppose the appointment of David Barron. We don’t need a judge on the bench who has already shown his disregard for the Constitution and for the rights of American citizens. Tell your Senator to vote “no” for drone lawyer David Barron.

Tell them. What does she think this is (http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-04-17/princeton-study-confirms-us-oligarchy)...

[angelatc]

I cannot imagine what Rand Paul was thinking when he said this.

He was thinking that he can win the debate, easily.

[anaconda]

Why no news from the Senate today? I thought the filibuster fireworks were supposed commence this week..