Tag Archive: Targeted Killings


Mr. Paul Goes To Washington




” Is it absurd to fear, as some of Paul’s colleagues charged, that the president will begin launching drone strikes on American soil? Probably. But the point is precisely that we live under an administration is so unwilling to acknowledge meaningful limits on what they may do in the name of national security that it was an exercise in tooth-pulling just to get a public disavowal of an absurd scenario that the government’s anemic targeted killing “standards,” taken to their logical extreme, would not appear to foreclose. The crucial message we should take from Paul’s marathon oration, then, may be this: If it’s absurd to pose the question that inspired his filibuster, surely it’s far more absurd that we’ve arrived, after a decade of complacency about government secrecy and unfettered executive discretion in the sphere of counterterrorism, at a point where the question would need to be posed.”



#StandWithRand: Rand Paul, Barack Obama, Drones, and Presidential Kill Lists





” In the first hour of his filibuster over the nomination of John Brennan, Sen. Paul spoke 9,024 words, enough to fill 15 pages as a standard Word document. A transcript of the first hour was provided by Sen. Paul’s office and appears below in its entirety:


I rise today to begin to filibuster John Brennan’s nomination for the CIA I will speak until I can no longer speak. I will speak as long as it takes, until the alarm is sounded from coast to coast that our Constitution is important, that your rights to trial by jury are precious, that no American should be killed by a drone on American soil without first being charged with a crime, without first being found to be guilty by a court. That Americans could be killed in a cafe in San Francisco or in a restaurant in Houston or at their home in bowling green, Kentucky, is an abomination. It is something that should not and cannot be tolerated in our country. I don’t rise to oppose John Brennan’s nomination simply for the person. I rise today for the principle. The principle is one that as Americans we have fought long and hard for and to give up on that principle, to give up on the bill of rights, to give up on the Fifth Amendment protection that says that no person shall be held without due process, that no person shall be held for a capital offense without being indicted. This is a precious American tradition and something we should not give up on easily. They say Lewis Carroll is fiction. Alice never fell down a rabbit hole and the White Queen’s caustic judgments are not really a threat to your security. Or has America the beautiful become Alice’s wonderland? ‘No, no, said the queen. Sentence first; verdict afterwards. Stuff and nonsense, Alice said widely – loudly. The idea of having the sentence first? ‘Hold your tongue, said the queen, turning purple. I won’t, said Alice. Release the drones, said the Queen, as she shouted at the top of her voice.

Lewis Carroll is fiction, right? When I asked the President, can you kill an American on American soil, it should have been an easy answer. It’s an easy question. It should have been a resounding and unequivocal, “no.” The President’s response? He hasn’t killed anyone yet. We’re supposed to be comforted by that. 
The President says, I haven’t killed anyone yet. He goes on to say, and I have no intention of killing Americans. But I might. Is that enough? Are we satisfied by that? Are we so complacent with our rights that we would allow a President to say he might kill Americans? But he will judge the circumstances, he will be the sole arbiter, he will be the sole decider, he will be the executioner in chief if he sees fit. Now, some would say he would never do this. Many people give the President the – you know, they give him consideration, they say he’s a good man. I’m not arguing he’s not. What I’m arguing is that the law is there and set in place for the day when angels don’t rule government. Madison said that the restraint on government was because government will not always be run by angels. This has nothing, absolutely nothing to do with whether the President is a Democrat or a Republican. Were this a Republican President, I’d be here saying exactly the same thing. No one person, no one politician should be allowed to judge the guilt, to charge an individual, to judge the guilt of an individual and to execute an individual. It goes against everything that we fundamentally believe in our country.

This isn’t even new to our country. There’s 800 years of English law that we found our tradition upon. We founded it upon the Magna Carta from 1215. We founded it upon Morgan from Glamorgan and 725 A.D. We founded upon the Greeks and Romans who had juries. It is not enough to charge someone to say that they are guilty.



Click the link to read the rest …








Obama’s Drones (Julian Sanchez)


    Breitbart offers an Insta/blog devoted to Rand Paul’s Filibuster . The blog is just loaded with posts by everyone from John Nolte to Iowahawk to Ace … Great job producing this and getting it online so quickly .



Here’s a sample … Paul fighting for us all 

The Democratic Whip Just Announced That the Democratic Party Objects to a Resolution That the President Can’t Murder American Citizens


” by ACE OF SPADES Mar 6, 2013 4:51 PM PT11

In response to This Is What A Republic Looks Like:



The left doesn’t really bother hiding it, does it?

It occurred to me that the president won’t simply agree to the rather reasonable proposition that he’s not permitted to murder people because of the psychology of the weakling.

The weaker a man is, the less heroic he is, the more he finds it necessary to put on the airs of heroism and pantomime the muscle-flexing of the strong.

Obama is a weak man, and certainly a weak president. Thus it becomes deadly to him to simply confess what is so obvious as to not need confessing:  That he’s not allowed to murder people.

A strong man could confess this without even thinking about it. The strong man does not need to ask himself things like Does this trivial acknowledgment of limitations of my power make me “look weak”?  The strong man knows he’s strong, and doesn’t worry much about “looking weak.”

But Obama is a weak man, and is presidency is one catastrophe piled upon another crisis, the whole disaster sustained only by his unrelenting posturing as a Hero before adoring liberals and TV news anchors (but I repeat myself).  The weak man simply cannot admit what the strong man can.  Weakness, after all, imposes limitations, and strength grants freedom of action.

To “yield” to Rand Paul would show the weakling for what he is, which is why he dares not do so.  The strong man would agree with a laugh.  But the weakling must continue to posture.”



More: Texas Sen. Ted Cruz Joins Rand Paul Filibuster


” Senator Rand Paul is not only exposing President Obama’s breathtaking hypocrisy on the issue of drones, he’s also giving a Master Class on the U.S. Constitution.”




New Poll Finds 57 Percent of Americans Think Obama’s Assassination Program Is Unconstitutional



” A new Reason-Rupe poll finds that a majority of Americans think President Obama’s targeted killing program, which famously allowed the CIA to assassinate an American-born Muslim cleric living in Yemen as well has his American-born teenage son, to be unconstitutional.

When asked if they thought it was “constitutional or unconstitutional for the president of the United States to order the killing of American citizens who are suspected of being terrorists,” 57 percent of respondents said they thought it was unconstitutional, including 65 percent of Republicans, 64 percent of independents, and 44 percent of Democrats.

Thirty-one percent of respondents said it was constitutional for the president to kill Americans suspected of being terrorists, including 40 percent of Democrats, 27 percent of Republicans, and 28 percent of independents.”



And the Democrats call themselves the “Champions Of Civil Liberties” ? What a joke … a sick , sick joke .







7 Things Democrats Would Have Freaked Out About If Bush Had Done Them


” 2. American deaths in Afghanistan have skyrocketed since Obama took office.

Actually, the death tolls in Afghanistan under each administration look like this:”



Actually, the death tolls in Afghanistan under each administration look like this:






Obama’s Drone Obsession Ruffling Feathers





” President Obama’s latest executive order allows for the killing by drone strikes of American citizens abroad.  The administration attempts to find its justification for this in American law: a targeted U.S. citizen has to have recently been involved in terrorist activities and pose “an imminent threat of violent attack against the United States.”  Although many national security advisers do not disagree with this tactic, they do have some reservations.

Former CIA Director Michael Hayden told American Thinker he believes that the issue should be not killing those who take up arms against the U.S., including American citizens, but rather the hypocrisy of it all.  “President Obama in 2008 ran against President Bush’s first term while Obama after 2008 governs against terrorism like Bush’s second term.  They are doing the right thing, but the sin here is pretending it’s different from what they inherited, and it is not.  Sometimes lawful isn’t sufficient in a democracy.  Although I am quite comfortable with the legal rationale, based on my past experiences, programs like these require long-term, broad-based political support.”

Judge , Jury , Executioner … Despot

   Targeted American teen killings …. Lovely … This from the most ” open , honest and transparent “ administration in history .

   Tell me when George Bush killed an American teenager .

  “.. the August issue, Tom Junod examines an entirely new application of power on the
part of the president — the targeted killing of individuals deemed to be threats to the
country. So far, thousands have been killed,most prominent among them Osama bin Laden and Anwar al-Awlaki. The decisions to
target are made and the lethal missions are carried out without any public accountability, even when those targeted are Americans and even when, on one occasion, one of those Americans was a
   Over the course of this week,
Junod considers five of the larger
implications of his story on The Politics Blog.
—Eds. ”

The barbarism of this administration rivals all the other socialist regimes and the silence of the Bushitler crowd is deafening .

  ” He was just a boy. Let’s start there. He was an American boy, born in America. Though he’d lived in Yemen since he was about seven, he was still an American citizen, which should have made it harder for the United States to kill him.
It didn’t. It should at the very least have made it necessary for the United States to say why it killed him.  It didn’t. ”


” UPDATE: Moe Lane: “You know what’s missing from this Tom Junod piece on drone strikes? . . . Any repudiation of this piece Junod wrote in response to Election Night 2008.”

Yep. Hence my mockery.

Moe continues: “Speaking as one of the ‘moldering’ people that the author later gleefully mocked in that article: YOU wanted this, Tom Junod. You wanted every particle of this. You drank deep at the well of hate in 2008, as the above passage
shows, and in your hate you fixated on getting Barack Obama elected. And Barack Obama was. And then Barack Obama decided – because he was and is a weak man, with neither George W Bush’s compassion, nor Bush’s moral strength – to pursue the Global War on Terror on the.cheap, and from a distance, and without
listening to the screams. So, you want to know why Abdulrahman al-Awlaki was killed, Tom Junod? Why, it was all done for you. So that you could continue to hate your domestic opponents in peace, and
without hindrance. Own it.”

Okay, that’s harsher than mere mockery, but entirely deserved. ”

Update lifted in it’s entirety from the good professor Reynolds .
Sir , please consider my copying verbatim as a true indication of my admiration of both yourself and Mr. Lane , both of whose writing skills cause me to bow my head in admiration .
Eloquence ..