“I was pleased with his words,” Paul said. “However, there still is a question in my mind, of what he thinks due process is. Due process to most of us is a court of law, it’s a trial by jury, and right now their process is him looking at some flashcards, and a Power Point presentation on Terror Tuesdays in the White House. For a lot of us, that’s not really due process.”
Raddatz pointed out that Obama outlined what seemed to be new rules for the use of drones.
Paul had no truck with that. “It’s not good enough to us that he’s not using
RELATED: “Of Course Rand Paul’s Filibuster Was A Publicity Stunt. That Was Kind Of The Point.”
Raddatz asked Paul about a case like Anwar al-Awlaki, an American citizen whom the government killed via a drone strike in September 2011.
Paul attempted to distinguish between a citizen who is fighting as an enemy combatant, and who thus could be killed without a trial, and one who is engaged in treasonous behavior.
“If you’re an American fighting with the Taliban,” Paul said, “you’re going to be shot with no due process. But if you are conspiring to attack America, and you are a traitor, I would try you for treason. If you don’t come home for a trial, I would try you in absentia. And then the death penalty has been used repeatedly throughout our history for treason. But a judge looks at evidence. And that’s something that separates us from the rest of the world. We adjudicate things by taking
Watch the whole segment here:
—
>> Follow Evan McMurry (@evanmcmurry) on Twitter