So Rand Paul is defending your right to due process. Shouldnt this be bipartisan?

So Rand Paul is standing there as long as he can to defend your right to due process. I have a serious question. Why is this not a bipartisan effort? Why dont you support his efforts? The point is, no president should have this power regardless of affiliation.

This isnt about party. This isnt about biases. This is about a right that was fought and died for, and it seems so many of you are so willing to throw it away. Please tell me, WHY?

2013-03-06T18:51:16Z

@crybaby: Even if that is the case, he is still doing the right thing. You have explained nothing other then your discontent with him, and thats childish. Focus on the issue at hand, and how important it actually is.

2013-03-06T18:53:19Z

@sadcat: i think we can all agree a drone strike against an american on american soil is not due process.

2013-03-06T19:03:27Z

@mushroom: Were not talking about "armed suspects". Were talking about giving presidential authority to assasinate americans like you or I. History is filled with countless examples with this type of abusive power, all the way up until even todays time. Saddam Hussein, Muammar Ghaddafi, Pol Pot, Etc. im not saying Obama will use this power. Im saying a president, in the future, could potentially abuse this power. This is why it is important.

Maxwell2013-03-06T18:47:44Z

Favorite Answer

Should be.


I don't understand why people want to give up their right due process.

And why they attack Rand for attempting to get Obama to say he won't fire missiles at US citizens on US soil.

I also don't understand why Obama won't say he would never fire a missile at a US citizen on US soil.



@SADCAT

Seriously???

We can't even agree that firing a missile from a drone into your car/house/face bypasses your right to due process prior to punishment?


We aren't talking about a situation like a cop, where you are holding a gun at someone and the cop shoots you to stop you from harming others.

We are talking about a pre-authorized drone strike like against Anwar Awalaki (sp?) where he got blown up because we knew where he'd be.

L.T.M.2013-03-07T02:57:47Z

I have a hard time taking people seriously who believe wiretapping and waterboarding are terrible because one president does it but vaporizing American citizens on US soil without trial is no big deal because their Dear Leader Barack approves of it.

mushroom_mutt2013-03-07T02:56:23Z

What I don't understand is this; Why does this matter?

IF the FBI, ATF, NSA, CID, or any other police agency goes up against an armed suspect and kills them, then that is still "killing an American citizen on US soil".
And no one has an issue with that, what makes this different?

Yankees Fan ☠2013-03-07T02:49:53Z

Liberals oppose bipartisanship. They want complete control, and what Paul is doing infuriates them.

Iron_Plague2013-03-07T02:49:48Z

It has been bipartisan.

Democrat Ron Wyden is one that is standing with him.

Show more answers (5)