Yahoo Answers is shutting down on May 4th, 2021 (Eastern Time) and beginning April 20th, 2021 (Eastern Time) the Yahoo Answers website will be in read-only mode. There will be no changes to other Yahoo properties or services, or your Yahoo account. You can find more information about the Yahoo Answers shutdown and how to download your data on this help page.

Me asked in Politics & GovernmentPolitics · 8 years ago

Democrats why can't you see that Rand Paul's filibuster was about Due Process?

President’s authority to assassinate

American citizens without due process

rights. "You have a right to remain silent"

Your 5th Amendment!

Reality Check: Why Rand Paul’s Filibuster Matters http://www.ijreview.com/2013/03/41266-reality-chec...

12 Answers

Relevance
  • Anonymous
    8 years ago
    Favorite Answer

    I thought at the time that he was absolutely right, and I still lean very heavily in that direction. American citizens are guaranteed the right to due process, and to kill an American citizen on suspicion of terrorist activity without a trial is abominable -

    However -

    I think the operative word here is "American Citizen". I think that for anyone within the US, they should absolutely be given the benefit of any doubt, they should be presumed innocent, and dealt with via our avenues of "Due Process"

    Things do get a little sketchy though, when you are on foreign soil - especially if this American citizen has joined forces with an enemy. Section 1481 of the US code indicates that an American citizen automatically forfeits his citizenship under certain circumstances, one of which is service in a foreign military.

    This part of the code was tested in Nishikawa vs Dulles (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nishikawa_v._Dulles) in 1958.

    So the specific case here is an American citizen in a foreign country who had become a member of the Taliban and was engaged in military and subversive activities against the United States. Is that enough for him to have forfeited his citizenship? What if he were part of a terrorist cell in the US, actively engaged in a plot to blow up a building or landmark?

    Would your answer be different if he were actually foreign born? Was this different from the surgical strike that took out the two sons of Saddam Hussein?

    So I don't know the answer. As I said, I originally believed very strongly that anyone with US citizenship on US soil caught doing something like this would have to be put on trial in the US; given the pretty direct language of the US code and its test with Nishikawa, now I'm not sure.

  • fishn
    Lv 5
    8 years ago

    Yep I know & a band of evil Democrats will break down your door in the middle of the night take all your guns away >> Boo >> I bet you just crapped your pants . Wake up it's not going to happen nor will drones be attacking U.S. cities under orders from King Obama.

    Rand's Rant the longest day described by members of his own party calling it reckless & ridiculous including John McCain.

    For an elected official Rand Paul at Federal level suggesting President Obama will Assassinate Americans with out premise or due process is grossly irresponsible even a bigger threat if you believe Rand's Rant. The real threat is their are just to many nut case out there that do believe Rand's rant can do something crazy without due process killing innocent Americans based on Rand's Rant.

    Rand Paul should recant his unwarranted accusations with an apology minutes before resigning.

  • Philip
    Lv 6
    8 years ago

    Reality check: Democrats don't have problems with Rand's filibuster; mainstream Republicans do. By the way, Rand was talking about the 4th, not 5th, Amendment.

  • 8 years ago

    Be more concerned about Repubs attacking Rand Paul for his filibuster. Redeye Radio has mentioned it everyday and called it a waste of time. I consider it time well-spent because it brought the issue to light for alot of people who only get their news from mainstream sources.

    A guy called into Redeye and tried to talk about the Dept of Homeland Security naming the TEA Party as potential terrorists and MacNamara screamed over him and hung up in his face. And this guy touts himself a Libertarian.

    He didn't say that, ZombieDawn.

  • How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
  • 8 years ago

    @Sadcat

    If only more people knew the law. In the state of Georgia it is legal to use deadly force to prevent someone else from using deadly force in the process of committing a crime or a felony. I believe that a terrorist act falls under that category. But, how often would these drones seriously witness someone 'about to commit a terrorist act, or a possible terrorist act?' Chances are slim to none, or almost never. They would use the drones to spy on people suspected.

  • Anonymous
    8 years ago

    All Rand Paul wanted to do was give himself as much exposure as possible, it was nothing to do with due process or facts, it was to with him and his eventual bid for the White house in 2016!!!

    All Paul was doing was pandering to the fear mongers, and to the people who swallow this kind of Sh1t as easily as they would with apple pie and ignoring the fact that their are many people in this country that would like to cause maximum damage to as many people as possible and who are also US citizens!!!

    Due process taken from the English bill of rights, I wonder how many Brits would have supported that before those young British citizens blew up fifty people in London with their suicide bombs?????

  • sanjay
    Lv 4
    5 years ago

    I actually have a stressful time taking human beings heavily who believe wiretapping and waterboarding are damaging as a results of fact one president does it yet vaporizing human beings on US soil without trial isn't any massive deal as a results of fact their expensive chief Barack approves of it.

  • Anonymous
    8 years ago

    So you and Rand Paul are saying that if the President or law enforcement discovers that a US citizen is on the verge of a terrorist act that will kill thousands of people, neither can use deadly force to prevent that citizen from committing the act, and must go to a judge and get an arrest warrant?

    In my understanding, when any criminal threatens to use deadly force imminently, law enforcement has always had the right to shoot to kill. I don't see how this latest use of deadly force is a whole lot different.

  • Anonymous
    8 years ago

    because it wasn't...

    even holder said he would only use it in an extreme emergency like 9-11... and there are obviously limits to due process... like immediate danger, like in extreme emergencies like 9-11...

    EDIT: lyle is correct... it's would probably be extremely rare that they would actually use the drones to kill... they would mostly be used like police helicopters... for oversight for local police...

    patrolling high traffic areas to give an eagle eye view for cops on the ground, patrolling extremely remote areas that usually have no police coverage... it would be extremely rare for it to open fire...

    but if it did need to, it would probably be a good idea to not make it illegal...

  • Anonymous
    8 years ago

    Democrats can see only the talking points that are on their shill sheets that were handed to them this morning.

    They literally do not know anything else.

Still have questions? Get your answers by asking now.