Rand Paul explains drone comments on Hannity radio 4/24/13 (tube added)

[Isaac Bickerstaff]

This better be good. After the "filibluster", he proved himself to be nothing more than an unprincipled sycophant by voting for that sociopath Brennen's confirmation anyway.

OK, I have to apologize to all you believers in Rand. Whether his votes to confirm both Hagel and Kerry confused me or the "news" outlet I was reading at the time is unclear. Sorry for your butthurt.
I do reserve the right to call him a sycophant, however (see Kerry confirmation).

 

[JJ2]

What's the difference between police shooting at you on the ground, in a helicopter, or with a drone?

Does it really matter the type of physical means they use to neutralize you if you're a threat?

Collateral damage is a big concern (but he sort of addressed that).

 

[phill4paul]

What's the difference between police shooting at you on the ground, in a helicopter, or with a drone?

Does it really matter the type of physical means they use to neutralize you if you're a threat?

Yes, it does. The least amount of physical means they have to neutralize you means the more they have to explain themselves.

Waco. Do you remember that? Do you remember what the FBI briefed to the public? Have you ever taken the time to understand that the FACTS presented were anything but?

Ah, well, to you it's a "conspiracy theory." Even though FACTS prove different.
bueracracy
If a cop shoots at you then there is a name. There is a person that can hide behind bureaucracy only so much. He has a name. The drone operator has only a number. And the departments enunciation of "Procedure was followed" doesn't even have a name or person behind it. It is just part of the machine.

 

[phill4paul]

Yes, but "sanctioned" constitutionally. Not every "drone" is a 70 foot long thing that looks like a missile. The filibuster was about assassinations by the executive without due process and in non combative scenarios.

No drone should be armed within the U.S. Ever. We move from individuals that already have great leeway in "execution" to an un-named entity that will get free anonimous reign.

 

[anaconda]

OK, I have to apologize to all you believers in Rand. Whether his votes to confirm both Hagel and Kerry confused me or the "news" outlet I was reading at the time is unclear. Sorry for your butthurt.
I do reserve the right to call him a sycophant, however (see Kerry confirmation).

You "apologize" by calling me "butthurt?" Nice. I was civil and courteous to you (post #19 above).

By the way, Rand has stated numerous times that he believes the executive should be offered wide discretion in cabinet appointments.

 

[jtstellar]

He said there is no difference in what he said yesterday and what he said during the filibuster. I disagree (hence the reason for the clarification that was issued last night). I think we all know by now that he used a poor example which changed the perception entirely.

so if a math teacher taught you how to do multiples but 3x3 doesn't work for you, he instead says 3+3+3, that's a change of tone on his part? more like it's a need for special class on your part.

 

[Dogsoldier]

Drones will be used against us. Mark my words. The only way to stop it is if we ban them completely which will never happen because there are people naive enough to think that the drones won't be used against them. They actually think that drones will only be used on terrorist forgetting that gun owners will eventually be considered a home grown terrorist. Anyone that stands for the constitution will be considered a terrorist eventually.

 

[cajuncocoa]

so if a math teacher taught you how to do multiples but 3x3 doesn't work for you, he instead says 3+3+3, that's a change of tone on his part? more like it's a need for special class on your part.

Even some of his ardent supporters realize that he originally misspoke. But you're too busy insulting people to follow the story.

 

[Sola_Fide]

Hannity just announced at top of show, no time given


update:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8xgC9v446h0

Wow. I thought Hannity actually had great questions for Rand in that first segment.

 

[FSP-Rebel]

I do reserve the right to call him a sycophant, however (see Kerry confirmation).

If he's said it once, he's said it a 100 times why he eventually votes for the Cabinet picks, you don't have to like it. #knickelanddiming

 

[Sola_Fide]

Drones will be used against us. Mark my words. The only way to stop it is if we ban them completely which will never happen because there are people naive enough to think that the drones won't be used against them. They actually think that drones will only be used on terrorist forgetting that gun owners will eventually be considered a home grown terrorist. Anyone that stands for the constitution will be considered a terrorist eventually.

Yes. Drones will be used against us, and drones from people who hate us for our freedoms will be sent against us.

 

[ronaldo23]

will Rand vote against immigration reform if his trust/verifiy amendment isn't added to it?

 

[anaconda]

will Rand vote against immigration reform if his trust/verifiy amendment isn't added to it?

I would certainly think so.

 

[trey4sports]

Sean Hannity is such a bitch.

 

[John McNeece]

Sean Hannity is such a bitch.

Agreed

 

[DylanWaco]

I find it odd that further militarization of the police force and the non-surgical nature of drones based on their current record is being completely ignored in this discussion.

 

[PaulConventionWV]

Hope he said that weaponized drones should be totally banned in the U.S. Hope he said that surveillance drones should only be used with a warrant. Anxiously awaiting.

He did say that a warrant is ALWAYS required. He did not say that any certain technology should be completely banned for public or private use. FOR SHAME!

Seriously, though, what's so bad about drones? It's the government's use of them that's the problem, not the drones themselves.

 

[PaulConventionWV]

He said there is no difference in what he said yesterday and what he said during the filibuster. I disagree (hence the reason for the clarification that was issued last night). I think we all know by now that he used a poor example which changed the perception entirely.

Care to explain why you believe it was different? He used the exact same example in the filibuster. I must say, I'm satisfied with his explanation. If he says he didn't mean a peaceful pereson coming out of a liquor store with a holstered weapon and cash, am I supposed to distrust him when he says it?

 

[cajuncocoa]

Care to explain why you believe it was different? He used the exact same example in the filibuster. I must say, I'm satisfied with his explanation. If he says he didn't mean a peaceful pereson coming out of a liquor store with a holstered weapon and cash, am I supposed to distrust him when he says it?

He made clear he didn't mean a peaceful person coming out of a liquor store in the filibuster; in the interview (before the clarification) he did not make that clear. Is that nit-picking? Maybe. But when someone is giving the government the power to kill someone, I reserve the right to pick nits.

FYI, I don't support the use of drones at all.

 

[July]

He made clear he didn't mean a peaceful person coming out of a liquor store in the filibuster; in the interview (before the clarification) he did not make that clear. Is that nit-picking? Maybe. But when someone is giving the government the power to kill someone, I reserve the right to pick nits.

FYI, I don't support the use of drones at all.

It was a little nit picky, at least for those who follow Rand closely....if we listen to the whole interview, it's implied through context that the hypthetical man with the gun in his example is actually actively using the weapon. We can tell that because he was talking about an "imminent attack" and "ongoing crime" moments before and after the comment. Based on the filibuster we know what Rand's definition of "imminent attack" means--that violent/lethal force is in immediate progress.

I think the comment sounds so strange because Rand keeps having to distinguish and define what "active combat" is and what "imminent attack" means. I think most people take the concept of self defense for granted and it should seem obvious without having to make a point of it. But as we know, the govt is currently trying to stretch and expand these terms so that they no longer mean "immediate" in order to justify killing "enemy combatants" overseas preemptively and/or justify the collateral damage of persons who are not actively engaged in any combat. We know from the filibuster Rand opposes this expanded redefinition of the word... but I think this gave people a bad feeling because we know that when the govt uses the word "imminent" they no longer really mean an active threat is immediately in progress. Therefore people were imagining a scenario with a man non violently walking out of a store with his gun holstered, or otherwise not being fired at any one.