Rand Paul Statement on Domestic Drone Use

[tsai3904]

Sen. Rand Paul released the following statement this evening following erroneous reports of a change in his position on the use of domestic drones.

"My comments last night left the mistaken impression that my position on drones had changed.

"Let me be clear: it has not. Armed drones should not be used in normal crime situations. They only may only be considered in extraordinary, lethal situations where there is an ongoing, imminent threat. I described that scenario previously during my Senate filibuster.

"Additionally, surveillance drones should only be used with warrants and specific targets.

"Fighting terrorism and capturing terrorists must be done while preserving our constitutional protections. This was demonstrated last week in Boston. As we all seek to prevent future tragedies, we must continue to bear this in mind."

http://www.paul.senate.gov/?p=press_release&id=779

 

[DrHendricks]

AHHHHH! The shock and horror of him actually meaning what he filibustered for 13 hours about. I think I'm going into shock.

 

[supermario21]

This is amusing that there are so many freaking out over nothing. Good thing Rand and his staff are on top of things to get these statements out quickly.

 

[lib3rtarian]

Rand needs to be careful on what he is saying. The media is gathering soundbites ahead of 2016.

 

[supermario21]

The media is trying to stir angst among Rand's followers.

 

[EBounding]

Let's argue about something else.

 

[Christian Liberty]

This is amusing that there are so many freaking out over nothing. Good thing Rand and his staff are on top of things to get these statements out quickly.

No we aren't. Maybe I just didn't realize it quickly enough but Rand's position on this is disgusting and wrong. Drones should NEVER be used to kill people, whether on US soil or abroad, in much the same way bombers should never be used either on US soil or abroad. Guns can be pinpointed, and its much easier to ascertain whether there's a real threat when you are physically present with a gun, so there's clearly no valid comparison between that.

Believe me, 24 hours ago, I was excited about Rand. I may have criticized some people for pretending that Rand was his dad, but I still supported him, and pretty strongly about that. I had a conversation with my constitutional conservative dad telling him basically "You know we don't agree on everything, but Rand Paul agrees with you on basically everything, you should support him." I had a conversation with a woman from my church, a unique individual who actually likes Ron Paul INCLUDING foreign policy, as well as being a conspiracy theroist. I was telling her that she should support Rand Paul because even though he isn't as consistant as Ron, he's the best chance we have and the one candidate that doesn't want to destroy our freedom. Believe me, I was a little more critical amongst people that I felt gave Rand a pass too often, and I was annoyed with a few of his more centrist views on foreign policy, drugs, and whatnot, but I was on Rand's bandwagon. I never adored him like I did Ron, but I was absolutely supporting him for the Presidency.

I'll still probably vote for him, but I'm much less excited about him now, and I feel like I have a much tougher time selling him. Rand royally disappointed today. These drone strikes are just as devastating to our freedom as the NDAA, actually, worse because it gives the government the power to KILL without trial. Rand Paul tries to soften it with "Imminent threat" but how the crap can you actually assess that when you aren't even there? How do you expect to avoid collateral damage? How do you expect for avoid LEO abuse, which totally never happens (Sarcasm.)

Giving these people drones is just as stupid as giving terrorists drones, and would be even more stupid than giving terrorists drones if we weren't creating blowback with our foreign policy. That Rand is willing to do something this stupid shows that he can't be trusted. This is serious stuff.

 

[Brian4Liberty]

This is amusing that there are so many freaking out over nothing. Good thing Rand and his staff are on top of things to get these statements out quickly.

It was a successful divide and conquer hit piece that did the most damage.

 

[TheGrinch]

No we aren't. Maybe I just didn't realize it quickly enough but Rand's position on this is disgusting and wrong. Drones should NEVER be used to kill people, whether on US soil or abroad, in much the same way bombers should never be used either on US soil or abroad. Guns can be pinpointed, and its much easier to ascertain whether there's a real threat when you are physically present with a gun, so there's clearly no valid comparison between that.

What about if you ascertain there's a real threat, and then call in a drone strike rather than risk innocent lives if it can prevent it?

I still am not crazy about it, but it's not that disgusting of a position (in theory anyway, the position may be naive, but not disgusting, IMO)

 

[DrHendricks]

Let's argue about something else.

But don't you understand? Rand is a neo-con triple agent that hates liberty!

 

[green73]

See guys, he doesn't want armed drones for cops. Oh wait, he does.

James Bovard: Imminent situations tend to breed like lemmings.

 

[NY-Dano]

No we aren't. Maybe I just didn't realize it quickly enough but Rand's position on this is disgusting and wrong. Drones should NEVER be used to kill people, whether on US soil or abroad, in much the same way bombers should never be used either on US soil or abroad. Guns can be pinpointed, and its much easier to ascertain whether there's a real threat when you are physically present with a gun, so there's clearly no valid comparison between that.

I'm not quite so sure. If there was an active sniper on a roof and the police couldn't get a clear shot... idk, perhaps it would be justified. I'm not saying using a missile that could injure others or even that we are talking about drones, per se... just using advanced technological methods.

That being said, I think the establishment on left and right are just looking for any way to kneecap Rand at his base. They will use any means necessary to bring him down.

 

[July]

Not all drones are bombers, and some are just strictly equipped for surveillance. I imagine there are some types that could be more comparable to a gun, or police dog, or something similar. If you don't think police should be able to kill people with drones, maybe they shouldn't be killing people with guns either. But that's getting into a whole different dimension of the debate.

 

[cajuncocoa]

"Fighting terrorism and capturing terrorists must be done while preserving our constitutional protections. This was demonstrated last week in Boston. As we all seek to prevent future tragedies, we must continue to bear this in mind."

Really??

 

[NY-Dano]

Really??

I think the plain view principle needs to be revisited for these kinds of situations, but yes.

 

[TheGrinch]

Really??

vv

The topic of the conversation that he's clarifying was not the lockdown, it was about drones.

No drone strike was issued. The suspect was found and will be given due process and a trial, rather than being designated as an "enemy combatant". Frankly, I actually have to give a small kudos to the Obummer admin for not giving him the Gitmo treatment like they could have, and maybe just maybe the pressure from Rand's filibuster played into all that.

But by all means, keep moving the goal posts and play gotcha until something sticks.

Again, the topic of conversation was drones. Don't be like the media and take one small snippet to make it sound like it's something it wasn't.

If you wish to find out his stance on the lockdown, then call his office and see if you can get an answer.

 

[Rudeman]

It looks like some people are just looking for reasons to dislike/hate Rand.

 

[JK/SEA]

Let's argue about something else.

no.

 

[Christian Liberty]

That being said, I think the establishment on left and right are just looking for any way to kneecap Rand at his base. They will use any means necessary to bring him down.

How can they? Rand Paul is doing it to himself.

Not all drones are bombers, and some are just strictly equipped for surveillance. I imagine there are some types that could be more comparable to a gun, or police dog, or something similar. If you don't think police should be able to kill people with drones, maybe they shouldn't be killing people with guns either. But that's getting into a whole different dimension of the debate.

There are certain limited situations where a police officer should be allowed to kill with a gun, namely, if the cop or someone else is actually being threatened with legal force. I think individuals should be allowed to kill in defense of property, but not cops, because that would amount effectively to trial free execution.

I don't apply those to drones, not because they're "High tech" but because collateral damage.

Really??

Apparently. Rand Paul is becomming a disappointment to me. You've watched me, I really wanted to support him. I really did. he's destroying himself, and making a mockery of his father's supporters.

It looks like some people are just looking for reasons to dislike/hate Rand.

No, I'm really not. I've been genuinely depressed since I read that Rand said this. Genuinely. I really was a pretty hard supporter a day ago. Not the "He's his father but an undercover agent" type of supporter, but clearly a "He's the best he's got and I'll try to convince someone of that any chance I get" type of supporter.

Rand betrayed me. Thanks a lot. Stop pretending to be Rand Gingrich...

 

[Matt Collins]

The media is trying to stir angst among Rand's followers.

Yep, and there are too many people who fell for it. I thought the liberty movement was smarter than to fall for MSM tricks and propaganda .... sometimes I wonder