Rand Paul NYT OP-ED: Show Us the Drone Memo

[Anung Un Rama]

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/12/opinion/show-us-the-drone-memos.html?_r=0

I supported Ron Paul's bid for POTUS in '12 based on his foreign policy, but I'm not a big fan of Rand. This may just be gamesmanship to delay or deny David Barron's nomination, but I do agree with this position. The secrecy of our government since President Cheney has only gotten worse under Pres Obama and this assassinating of American citizens without a fair trial sets a frightening precedent.

The White House may invoke national security against disclosure, but legal arguments that affect the rights of every American should not have the privilege of secrecy.

Agree or Disagree?

 

[Jukai]

This is a tough issue to crack and I have very mixed feelings about it. Clearly, we SHOULD have the ability to kill an American if he has betrayed the country and joined the enemy. How this is defined is going to be tricky.

Although, if we go by the example set by the founding fathers, it's simply whoever the executive branch declares a traitor.

 

[Anung Un Rama]

This is a tough issue to crack and I have very mixed feelings about it. Clearly, we SHOULD have the ability to kill an American if he has betrayed the country and joined the enemy. How this is defined is going to be tricky.

Although, if we go by the example set by the founding fathers, it's simply whoever the executive branch declares a traitor.

What about the Senate and the American people having access to the legal opinion the administration is leveraging?

Especially since at least one was written by a Supreme nom.

 

[Its Me Austin]

 

[UpaLoompa]

Fucking drones.

 

[Diamond Jim]

I saw Rand just recently came out criticizing new republican pushed voter ID laws. He is an interesting guy. I'm not a big fan of his domestic policy but his foreign policy is probably the closest to what I believe out if both sides. I don't give him a much of a chance in 2016 but he could make the debates interesting.

Plus, calling Cheney out on using Iraq to gain millions for halaburton scores points in my book.

 

[emax]

This is a tough issue to crack and I have very mixed feelings about it. Clearly, we SHOULD have the ability to kill an American if he has betrayed the country and joined the enemy. How this is defined is going to be tricky.

Although, if we go by the example set by the founding fathers, it's simply whoever the executive branch declares a traitor.

You are right about the Founding Fathers, and honestly, I fully agree with you that those conservatives and others who talk about how great of an example the Fathers were like to ignore, sometimes in the most blatant wishful thinking manner possible, the fact that they were quite often full of shit in terms of how they stuck to their words in their political as well as their personal lives. That is why I feel America has to be run by that beloved document they left us with and not by pointless speculations on what they would have thought or done. Plus, more than a few of them agreed the living should not be ruled by the dead.

As for this question, one may feel the need to have the gov't go after traitors, but Rand Paul is absolutely correct that at the moment we simply don't have reliable ways to determine that in terms of who is betraying the principles of the American constitution.

 

[Hollywood Nicky]

I saw Rand just recently came out criticizing new republican pushed voter ID laws. He is an interesting guy. I'm not a big fan of his domestic policy but his foreign policy is probably the closest to what I believe out if both sides. I don't give him a much of a chance in 2016 but he could make the debates interesting.

Plus, calling Cheney out on using Iraq to gain millions for halaburton scores points in my book.

this is exactly how i feel about him, i think domestically he's kind of wishing this was still the 1700's, but foreign policy i agree with him nearly 100%.

 

[emax]

I saw Rand just recently came out criticizing new republican pushed voter ID laws. He is an interesting guy. I'm not a big fan of his domestic policy but his foreign policy is probably the closest to what I believe out if both sides. I don't give him a much of a chance in 2016 but he could make the debates interesting.

Plus, calling Cheney out on using Iraq to gain millions for halaburton scores points in my book.

Rand Paul is already seeing conservatives turn on him over his stance on voting laws. I think he is much more ambitious in going across the aisle than other politicians and that could be buying him some cool points even from those who are rather scared of his proposed fiscal and budget policies.

 

[Jukai]

.... is this serious?

 

[afrdzak]

Rand Paul is already seeing conservatives turn on him over his stance on voting laws. I think he is much more ambitious in going across the aisle than other politicians and that could be buying him some cool points even from those who are rather scared of his proposed fiscal and budget policies.

True. He doesn't appear to be the typical 100% party shill. And that is highly refreshing...even if I don't agree with him on a lot of things.

Unfortunately for him, not being a 100% party shill means he will never make it out of the GOP primaries.

 

[emax]

True. He doesn't appear to be the typical 100% party shill. And that is highly refreshing...even if I don't agree with him on a lot of things.

Unfortunately for him, not being a 100% party shill means he will never make it out of the GOP primaries.

It is more unfortunate for those who are terrified of Hillary winning; the only kind of Republican candidate who has a prayer of beating Hillary is one who is recognized as not being a run of the mill GOP shill, which is what was the perception of Romney and McCain. And that was why their campaigns against Obama were the equivalent of a wild animal trying to tackle a diesel truck by going at it head on.

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

I agree with the quote. Secrecy isn't how this country is supposed to conduct business. Especially not when it comes to depriving people of due process.

 

[drstrangelov]

I agree with his message and think he's doing, and has done, the people a real service by relentlessly pushing this issue. But, this is the sort of thing that's admirable in a legislator, but an inherent flaw in a president. It's a great counterweight to have, a legislator who will call the president out on his shit, but that kind of proposed restraint would bind the hands of the president in a way I don't know if I'd ever approve of broadly in practice. In theory I agree, but the moment that stance left the country looking weak, the cost would likely be greater than that of the singular instance being discussed now.