Anyone is free to believe conspiracy theories, those who think there is truth to them simply might beleive in them.
But how do we know that Rand Paul isn't just lying either? He seems to not value our own Constitution, particularly the Sixth Amendement, what other parts does he want to ignore?
Rand Paul is flip-floppy on the issue of drones. Consider our own Constitution and how Rand Paul is against our own Sixth Amendment: the right to a fair trial. What else is he actually against?
Rick Ungar wrote the following in Forbes.
“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. (emphasis added)”
Bravo, I thought, as I listened to Mr. Paul’s dramatic statement back on March 6th of this year. I mused that while I may not be with this guy on too many things, I had to admit that this is a man who ‘gets’ the importance of the Constitution and due process under the law.
Or so I thought. It turns out that Senator Paul’s shining moment turned out to be all too brief.
Here’s what the senator had to say last night when discussing the use of drones when it comes to alleged bad guys like the Boston Marathon bombing suspect—
“I’ve never argued against any technology being used when you have an imminent threat, an active crime going on. If someone comes out of a liquor store with a weapon and fifty dollars in cash, I don’t care if a drone kills him or a policeman kills him.”
As my heart sunk, I tried to focus my ears on the remainder of what Paul had to say—
“It’s different. If they want to come fly over your hot tub or your yard just because they want to do surveillance on everyone and watch your activities. If there’s a killer on the loose in a neighborhood, I’m not against drones being used.”
But, Senator, didn’t you say that our right to a trial by jury is precious? Didn’t you say that no American should be killed by a drone on American soil without first being charged with a crime and without first being found guilty by a court?
Yep. That’s what you said. I know that because I just went back and read your quote.
Now, less than two months later, here you are telling me that if a guy comes out of a liquor store with fifty bucks and a gun, it’s totally cool for the government to fire a missile at his head.
What if the man coming out of the liquor store had the gun jammed into his hand by the real bad guy and told to distract the cops or the bad guy would kill him? What if the guy coming out with the gun is the store clerk who escaped? What if…what if…what if?
This is why the American justice system requires trials, due process, evidence, etc. It’s always about the ‘what ifs’.
If the Senator had these exceptions in mind when he stated his original position in the strongest of terms; and if what he was really saying was that he didn’t want drones listening in on our conversations in hot tubs (I’m having some trouble following how that connects to drones killing Americans on American soil), wouldn’t you think he might have mentioned these exceptions as he held the floor of the Senate for all those hours? It’s not like he didn’t have the time.
Hypocrisy is a term that is possibly overused by writers such as myself. And while we may be quick to use the label, such branding typically has an element of opinion or perception involved that allows others who support the one so charged to rail, argue and defend the individual under attack.
And yet, here we appear to have an example of hypocrisy immune from challenge. We see Senator Paul’s words of March 6, 2013 and we see his words of last night.
Not often is there a more stunning example of so pure and remarkable an exercise in hypocrisy.
Let’s hope my conservative and Tea Party friends who sit behind a radio microphone or expound on TV—and you know who you are—will be quick to take Senator Paul to task for his shocking display of hypocrisy. To do otherwise will only serve to paint you with the identical brush and expose your lack of willingness to tell the truth when the truth is right in front of your face.
You’re either for due process or you aren’t. And if you congratulated the Senator on his successful filibuster—as I did—you surely better be ready to call him out now that he has sold out the very principles he wasted the Senate’s time so falsely pursuing.
Rand Paul Shockingly Now Supports The Use Of Drones On US Soil To Kill Americans-So What Was That Filibuster Thing All About?
Edited by Leave Britney alone!, 12 May 2013 - 05:28 PM.