-34 votes

Rand Paul says drone strike on exiting liquor store suspect O.K. - UPDATED

Update: Paul's response.

I didn't believe it either...
Here is the video. He speaks about it beginning at 2:25


http://youtu.be/Ctha0exQTd4

Personally, I think the nearly assured misuse of drones should prohibit them entirely until the debate is complete on their use in the US.

Should the 4th amendment issues be cleared up and the NDAA and Patriot acts and all other unconstitutional orders and regs be repealed, I would then consider the use of drones as a cost effective replacement for helicopters in non-lethal configurations only with warrant based and active scene being the authorized times surveillance equipment could be active during a flight.

Certainly not to fire on suspects any more than I would advocate shooting a robber from a helicopter.

Without a direct/eminent threat to a human from that suspect can we morally advocate lethal force used on a robber from an unmanned vehicle. What is he thinking? Call me old fashion, but in civilian life I still think people should kill people. Let's at least keep that personal.

I am stunned by Rand's statement. Unmanned killers in our skys O.K.??? Really?

The guy is simultaneously capable of great good and evil it seems. Scares me. What are our alternatives? I don't know but, I am looking.

Get away from the Neocons and war mongers Rand, their arrogant and self-righteous air is rotting your brain.

UPDATE: Ok,,, now that the may-lay has subsided on this a bit and even Rand Paul (Big thank you to Rand!) took time to address it himself when it travel up the news food chain of the web, I would like to share with you a great comment from the user Wishfulthinker Here is the hyperlink; www.dailypaul.com/283117/rand-paul-calls-for-drone-strike-on...

Wishful wrote down nearly exactly what I wanted to assume was missing from Rand's comments on the fox interview the "implied missing middle statement".

Wishful's comment and my reply will be found at the link if you are interested.

Strong reservations and hopeful thoughts remain for me concerning Rand. You may read some of these outlined in comments to others below here on this thread and on other posts on the DailyPaul.

Thanks all! Remain vigilant for Liberty.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

OK so it was, in your opinion, a cowardly

and dastardly act I committed by pleading to the non rated misdemeanor instead of going to trial with an attorney, remember, this occurred ten minutes before trial and the case has languished for almost two and a half years, the judge would brook no other delays so I couldn't fire the attorney and I had lost all faith in him. By pleading and accepting the $1800.00 in cost and fines on top of the $6500.00 I paid to the lawyer I saved my job, my home, with my garages where three classic cars are kept, and this computer I am working on along with all my other worldly possessions including my cherished Chesapeake Bay Retriever. There is absolutely no doubt I would have lost all if I had pursued a trial with the representation I had erroneously trusted and chosen. I am a widower who lives alone and a 30 day sentence would amount to a bankruptcy for me and a veritable death sentence for my pet. I stood up a against the violation of my Constitutional protections and won on that point but in this state they declare the revocation of a license to be a matter of Administrative perogative of the DOT and not a matter of law.
Would you care to hear about the time I had a couple of Judges, both of which are in jail for locking up over 4000 juveniles in a detention center they had a large financial stake in really pissed off at me? At the time I had a hot dog cart at the County Court house and it was a focal point for all the malcontents in the County. An individual showed up at my house supported by every police officer from the four surrounding municipalities purporting to be a cop from my municipality. As I was allowing him to cuff me he attempted to wrench my arm behind my back. This is an impossible thing to do due to a large pin in my shoulder that has been there since 1973. When my body went with the arm it was enough to charge me with resisting arrest. I was 52 at the time and never had a problem with the law. An astounding development arose where the individual turned out to not be a lawful cop. Two days before trial my attorney abruptly quit the case so I was forced to proceed on my own. Even though the "cop" confessed he had no right to place me under arrest I was convicted by a jury of resisting arrest. The County I live in is so corrupt (ever see the Mollie McGuires) that the great radio announcer Walter Wintchell stated,"If you wish to get away with murder, do it in Luzerne County". Oh yeah, the District Attorney who allowed the Judges to illegally lock up the masses of kids was elected to a Judgeship right after the judges were locked up due to his spending a few million to get elected, only problem was the money came from his attorney dad who is now on trial for embezzlement of clients monies. The State Attorney General at the time, who couldn't be bothered investigating these judges, is also now our Governor, it took the Feds getting involved to get things half cleaned up here. Good luck with trusting the Judicial system, you are just what they are counting on.

There are no politicians or bankers in foxholes.

Not at all

I'm not amking any judgment of you or your experiences. I am not accusing you if anything.

I don't agree with the expansion of the police state, which I have been watching.. being raised in the military, I wanted off the base, but I have found that the base is bigger than ever because of bad laws. Bad laws make good people bad people.

So I believe that if people reject the system, and do not participate, then it is useless.. to stop trying is defeat, and it ok that those who have been through the ringer do not want to return, but why discourage those who have not and have the interest, from trying?

Granger, you miss the point.

No one has suggested not going to jury duty. What we are trying to get you to understand is how corrupt the system has become and that you are not duty bound to engage it only on their terms. If you become involved in a marijuana case where the individual on trial actually admitted to his possession of the "illegal weed" you still are not duty bound to vote for a conviction. It's all about your own conscience and the lengths you will allow the corrupt puppet masters to compromise your values. The prison system in this country is the worlds largest and in light of that fact you must agree that our Judicial system is comparable and that is nothing to be proud of. Myself, I have always been excused from duty once I show up after being called due to my history with the County and local Government. They know full well that I am a Nullification fan and won't give me the chance to exercise that option.

There are no politicians or bankers in foxholes.

I understand that

How many liberty minded do you believe you encourage to show up for jury duty? I see that as the biggest part of the problem, people make excuses to not show up.. the people who you would want on your jury is who doesn't show up, so I made up my mind, I will show up, because if I was arrested and had to go to trial , I would want people like me in that box.

And I'm well aware of the prison system being the largest, the war on drugs, the privatixed work industry.. and that's why I chose to be involved, because they are getting away because liberty minded don't show up... now with Ron and Rand, my hope is that they would, but posts like yours.. if I was young, your post would have me minding my own business because I wouldn't want to have your business with them.. instead, I am willing to make a stand for you to have justice.

I'm sorry what you have been going through. It's outrageous! That's why I'm signing up and showing up for jury duty.. you are so way not alone. Unfortunately there are more yous than mes.

"participate and follow court

"participate and follow court orders". You're just the type prosecutors love. Ever hear of Jury Nullification? You've got some more larning to do!

"It is difficult to free fools from the chains they revere".
--Voltaire

It's hard not to be a menace to society when half the population is happy on their knees. - unknown

At least I show up

more than most can say.

If I was on trial I'd pay you

If I was on trial I'd pay you to stay home because I'd want a jury of my peers!

"It is difficult to free fools from the chains they revere".
--Voltaire

It's hard not to be a menace to society when half the population is happy on their knees. - unknown

If you were on trial

you would have your attorney help you with jury selection, and if you selected me, I would do my best to debate your case from a bill of rights perspective and fight precedents, doing my best to give you a fair trial, whether you like me or not, or I agree with you or not. I personally will not judge you, but what I'm given about you and the rules.. and if I don't agree with the rules, I would say something, and if I thought something was unfair, I would say something. I would not accept any money from you or anyone, but the BS compensation the court provides for jurors.

Rings hollow

Rings hollow

"It is difficult to free fools from the chains they revere".
--Voltaire

It's hard not to be a menace to society when half the population is happy on their knees. - unknown

LIBERTY2ME's picture

Sometimes I think we here at

Sometimes I think we here at the DP take things a little to litteraly.

WTF!

Your Dad needs to spank your ass on this one son!

Oh boy, this is why I cannot

Oh boy, this is why I cannot support Rand. He is too all over the place trying to please everyone with this political rhetoric. Unlike, Ron, he tries to hard to mince words and be politically polite and correct.

Just speak like anyone would and say what you mean. It is so irritating to me he wants to pelase everyone. More pople will like you if you give them straight talk.

Ron is polite, but he gives it to you straight, not mincing words.

In this case, Neil was making the case for us liberty people..

If you disagree with me on anything you are not a real libertarian...

hubbub

The hubbub created by Rand's above statements only goes to show the basic evil in all people's hearts and our movement is no different, people were so quick to throw him under the bus at any misstep or unclear statement. Unless those who are so willing to go off half cocked get themselves under control I can't see how we'll ever make a real difference in American politics. Spinning and twisting statements is the MSM's job, not ours, we're supposed to keep a level head and think through things.

As many people have said before, even if a guy like Rand gets into the oval office, the amount of good he'll be able to do will be minimal, but at least we'd be going in the right direction. Our other option is to continue to suffer under our current administration and keep on complaining and complaining and whining and whining and never winning. The choice is not utopia or hell. The choice is this America, or a better America. A libertarian in the white house will not change our country into a utopia over night and no utopia exists, but it would do us all a lot of good. So lets work toward it without coming apart at the seems every time someone in a suit speaks from the rotunda.

perfectly logical

If a guy is running from the scene of a presumed crime, a cop is allowed to shoot him. A missile is a bigger bullet. I also wish there were no drones but that is not the philosophical point Rand was making. His more important point was tactical, to paint Obama and his people as fascists.

This seems to come down to whether one trusts cops or not. According to Rasmussen yesterday, 87% of Americans believed the police acted with integrity and valor in Boston. Rand is with the American people who are concerned about crime and terrorism. Most people are concerned more about lawlessness than they are about the threat of martial law. The Boston incident showed once again that there are religious nutjobs and other assorted lunatics, anarchists, and nihilists that want to do us harm. Rand is for law and order - as most conservatives are.

You are WRONG.

Cops are NOT allowed to shoot unarmed criminals. I understand that sometimes they do it anyway, and that's because many of our police are already blood thirsty, trigger happy, and out of control. Please understand, it is not standard procedure for cops to shoot a suspect who is running away in the back, even if he is armed. Haven't you ever watched Cops, or even a movie? Suspects that aren't engaging the police, or threatening civilians are CHASED. You chase them, and only fire on them when you are met with force. If what you were saying was true, then there would be no charge such as "resisting arrest", they'd just shoot the person in the head and call the morgue.

Sorry, I trust lots of cops... but I don't trust ALL of them. And I definitely don't trust them all enough to let them remotely fly a killing machine into my neighborhood.

and you sir have no idea

and you sir have no idea about the rules of engagement for police officers...

Uhh... You need to check your facts...

Obviously YOU have no idea what the rules of engagement are for our police officers. You need to check your facts before you start telling people that they don't know what they're talking about.

See:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deadly_force

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fleeing_felon_rule

You may use deadly force in pursuit of a suspected felon, IF and only IF the officer deems him to be an immediate threat to the police or citizens. Cops don't go around shooting guys who knock off liquor stores while they're fleeing. If that were the case you wouldn't see so many people who rob stores getting arrested on tv, they'd just put a bullet in their head.

while

While I agree for the most part with you Kevin, the police sucked in Boston. They couldn't find this guy who escaped only a few blocks. It was only after they let people come out of their homes and stopped doing illegal searches of homes that a "civilian" found the guy. One can only assume if they had allowed people their freedom to be out and about as they saw fit, they would have found the guy sooner. So what most Americans think, really doesn't matter, the facts are what matter and MOST Americans think what the media tells them to think. Sadly. And I'm not sure cops can just shoot someone for running from a crime scene.

How very Hitleresque an answer.

How very Hitleresque an answer. So hoping this is sarcasm.

“Any man who thinks he can be happy and prosperous by letting the government take care of him better take a closer look at the American Indian.” ― Henry Ford.

Stop reaching

Folks, pay attention to how he votes on this issue, and not what he says. He obviously hasnt changed his position on the drone issue. And he obviously chose his words poorly during the interview. Its ok, take a deap breathe, nothing has changed....

So many here...

betting the house on Rand Paul.

You know what they say about not putting all your eggs in one basket huh? Perhaps not...

RAND DRONING ON

Just when you think maybe...he could come around, he goes and makes a statement; I don't care if the cops kill him or the drone kills him! Hey Senator, what about a trial first, hmmm? Yeah we know time consuming, we caught him red handed, kill him!
A little too cavalier for my taste.

RON PAUL is the GOLD STANDARD of politics, his value never changes; it's tied to the CONSTITUTION!

Senator Rand Paul is GREAT!

Senator Rand Paul is GREAT! Using such an absurd conjecture was a stroke of genius.

May I borrow your glasses?

I'd really like to see hope in Rand, but that statement made my blood run cold. His "clarification" did not make me feel any better.

Love or fear? Chose again with every breath.

I struggled interpreting this

I struggled interpreting this one until I noticed the 'or'. '...an imminent threat or a crime in progress'. The word 'and' is inclusive, including both the term before and after. The word 'or' is exclusive. This means he's saying drones could be used if a crime were in progress but there weren't an imminent threat. The simple use of the word 'or' in that situation takes out Miranda rights, a right to a trial, and puts us squarely in a Judge Dredd execute on the spot scenario.

Nothing to interpret...

Words sometimes mean what they mean, there aren't multiple definitions to the word "is", and Rand just put his foot back in the poop bucket as far as I'm concerned. I guess I'm old fashioned. I don't care much for armed drones flying overhead wherever whenever. Maybe Rand is just accepting the inevitable as far as technology and 'law enforcement' are concerned. I personally don't feel that connection of accountability with an unmanned drone controlled by whomever, versus a cop on the street withdrawing his weapon. Slippery slope much? What's the point of saying the military can't police it's own citizens if police are equally militarized to police said citizens? I'm waiting for Lindsey Graham to declare a WAR on ALL domestic crime....hook up state and local enforcement, ie MAFIA, with Abrams tanks and F-22 fighter jets to take out those dad-gum potheads and pick-pockets! Essentially this is what Rand is saying, "I don't care if Dirty Harry takes out a thug, or equipment developed for military applications does....after all, America, F(ck yeah!..." I personally am over this bullsh*t. I'm tired of watching Rand walk the tightrope. A month ago he had momentum on his side. He could have seized that opportunity to TRULY be the new great 'bald-with-toupee' hope and bravely STAND for something like his brave old man. That's great he's willing to play paddy-cakes with the neo-con politicians and media, but when push comes to shove he's got to put his foot down and say "goddammit this is what I stand for!" He's going for appeasement and satisfaction for today, but squandering the opportunity to incite the change we need if we ever want to have a future worth living for. I'm not a huge fan of Reagan or the propaganda surrounding the man but c'mon "Tear down this wall!"???? Genius. When Rand had the opportunity, left and right on his side- post-filibuster, he could have changed the dialogue altogether; he could have taken his father's route. Standing purely on principle. And all the media whores would have loved it. For better or worse. Why? Even public sentiment was on his side. I'm sorry, but I TRULY believe if your don't stand, immovable, FOR something, six weeks from now you're Paula Abdul or Vanilla Ice. In this day and age, who doesn't want to 'end the Fed'? Even ol' "Snowball" Sean Hannity would agree with that position! He had post-filibuster what his father never had- he had everyone from me to detestable Mark Levin on his side, but he's chosen to take the Mittens route, toeing and crossing the line to and fro.... When it's come to Rand, I haven't see-sawed this much since 3rd grade. My issue with Rand is this: If you try to please everyone, you'll please no one. I'm still waiting to be pleased longer than 30 days with Randall. Alas, only time will tell.

I just want to know how much

I just want to know how much money I get for being collateral damage in a drone strike on American soil in a law suite!

$10 million would be the minimum I would accept!

Posthumously of course,

Posthumously of course, LOL...

“Any man who thinks he can be happy and prosperous by letting the government take care of him better take a closer look at the American Indian.” ― Henry Ford.

what Rand??? I don't want

what Rand??? I don't want drones anywhere on American soil. You never know...you could hijack or control them. Humans should be in charge...not robots. He has waaay too much faith in government when it is politically opportunistic.

Just how many times has the US military missed their target overseas with drones strikes killing civilians...woman and children even...people at wedding even. What makes people think that our government would be more careful here?

Even if there were a pursuit going on, people's 4th amendments rights should still be upheld. Don't sacrifice liberty for security...or you shall surely lose them both.

So which is it Rand? Should people get a jury trial on close encounter with a drone?---I swear, this guy just loves playing the political game more and more.

And another thing...we liberty lovers should not be changing our message to conveniently try and sway the golf-club, ol' boy Republicans...we should be ideologically consistent, firm on respecting natural born rights and understand the threat the police state is to our freedom.

- Brennan

At least he slipped up in a way that impresses Republican types

(and I don't even think it was a big slip to begin with. I understood what he meant and didn't think much about it until the hoo-haw and just thought it was a bad example that wasn't explained enough).

Mainstream Republicans tend to be much more enthusiastic about justice. I am actually surprise at the immense support Rand is getting on the various mainstream news sources in response to attacks. The obvious liberal/progressive people commenting are basically circlejerking about how it's just one more thing they use to smear Rand. Libertarians are split on the issue and are basically cannibalizing each other (as they tend to do).

Let's be real here. If Rand has any shot at winning the Republican nomination he has to impress Republicans. There is a rather large percentage of the voting population (20% or so) who will never vote for Rand or any other Republican under any circumstances. There are also many libertarians who have already made up their mind and will jeer with these liberals. The politically active libertarians should not be that concerned about this demographic.

If Rand can secure the GOP nomination in 2016 I am confident that he will defeat any Democrat no matter how many progressives/libertarians hate him.