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the 4th amendment issues be cleared up and the NDAA and Patriot acts and all other unconstitutional orders and regs be repealed, I would then consider the use of drones as a cost effective replacement for helicopters in non-lethal configurations only with warrant based and active scene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

Oh come on! He said nothing of a "Drone Strike"

You people clean out your ears and listen to the video again. He said he has no problem with a drone in a tracking type situation when there is a robber suspect who just held up a liquor store and the police are in hot pursuit. Not any different than we would use a helicopter today. He said noting about using the drones for striking anyone. And, in fact he stressed trial by jury can give us the fairest outcome in criminal cases and specifically he was adamant about not flying drones over people's property to spy on them. Dropping bombs on American's using drones was completely out of the question. And if you saw his filibuster you might just figure that one out.

He obviously views drones as a tool much like we see guns as a tool. But he doesn't advocate MISUSE of that tool that would interfere with our constitutional rights.

He said...

"if someone comes out of a liquor store with a weapon and $50 in cash I don't care if a drone kills him or a policeman kills him."

Rand is ok with weaponized drones "killing" $50 robbers...

.
~wobbles but doesn't fall down~

I forget the precise language

I forget the precise language but he said something along the lines of not caring whether a drone takes him out or a cop does. That's a strike. It isn't what he said during the filibuster that's under discussion, it's what he said here.

Rand said...

"if someone comes out of a liquor store with a weapon and $50 in cash I don't care if a drone kills him or a policeman kills him."

.
~wobbles but doesn't fall down~

Maybe it is for tracking

Maybe it is for tracking purposes...should the government be able to spy through people's houses' walls because their might be dangerous people around? What about a warrant? what about the 4th Amendment? He was not consistant. I said jury trail. I don't want ANY types of drones flying around my town that are used for the "protection" of our community...this only establishes precedent that people will just keep accepting and sacrificing liberties...haven't you seen any Sci-fi films where drones are used to identify and track people in cities...no way man. I am NOT cool with this.

- Brennan

I Love Dr Rand Paul!

I Love Dr Rand Paul!

And his dad too!

Same old tactics

Divide and conquer.

Republicans vs. Democrats
Liberals vs. Conservatives

and now...

Ron supporters vs. Rand supporters

Defend our natural rights, defend the constitution. To hell with the manipulative media. To hell with the police state. And to hell with those who have chosen to stick their head in the sand and allow the decline of our way of life. The message can be spread to every man, woman and child but they must choose to accept it.

Liberty: Too big to fail

deleted - double post

.

"Alas! I believe in the virtue of birds. And it only takes a feather for me to die laughing."

This is what you said....

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

What if you said, "Personally, I think the nearly assured misuse of guns should prohibit them entirely until the debate is complete on their use in the US".

What is different about that? Why are drones different from guns? There are bad cops. There are bad citizens, why do we now feel the right to rob someone of their right to arm themselves with a drone?

Free market capitalism isn't right for America because it works better. It's right because it's free (and it works better).

Well, the difference is the

Well, the difference is the Constitution limits the government not the people. The people's rights are protected the government has no rights.

“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.

So...

...if you work for the government, then you don't have the right to carry a gun?

I just don't think the gun/drone thing is any different. Guns are misused all the time, so do we ban them until we know that nobody will misuse them?
Drones will be misused, but so will every other weapon that anyone could ever have. Drones aren't the issue, government is, regardless of what weapon they have.

Free market capitalism isn't right for America because it works better. It's right because it's free (and it works better).

Is carrying a gun part of the

Is carrying a gun part of the government job? I would think that when 5PM hits and you take off your civil servant hat and slide down the dinosaur on your way out of the office, you would assume your role as one of the people again and enjoy all your rights as anyone would.

However, as a civil servant you are bound by your oath (if your job requires one probably does if you are required to carry a gun)to the Constitution to defend it from enemy both foreign and domestic and to ensure that the rights of the individual people of the country are not violated or infringed. Sadly, many of the 9000 cops in Boston have forgotten this important piece of their contract with the people.

The Constitution exist to restrain the government and therefore does not apply equally to the civil servant while working as a government agent and the free people of the USofA.

Did that help?
Cheers!

“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.

It's clear Matt Drudge only

It's clear Matt Drudge only cares about headlines and billion-visit months; Nothing else.

Stop Reading Headlines. Watch the video with a sober head. There's nothing inconsistent about what he said or the positions he has held.

It seems to me that many people commenting and upset about Rands statement are upset about something in the air guided from the ground, as if that technology alone is what makes it moral or immoral. It's a very odd position to take.

Here's the difference.

Anwar was not in the act of carrying out terrorist attacks. There was not even an attempt to apprehend him. The Boston bomer was in the act, had multiple bombs, was being chased, and had killed a police office. If that's the case, where you are being attacked, you start looking and using technology to catch the bomber. No, you don't start spying on everyone -- the thermal imaging drone was only sent there AFTER a citizen said that he believed the bomber was on his private property and in his boat.

That's the difference.

Helping to Restore the Republic.

Yes there is. Armed lethal

Yes there is. Armed lethal drones in the skys was not an option on filibuster day. Look, I like Rand. I hope he sees what many of us do about his trying to be and leader and a Statesman and the dangers he faces with politicking his good will away with the liberty base. He is clarifying his message we are just keeping him honest. No one is sadder it has to be.

“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.

I'll defend Rand again here....

...if you listen to the rest of the video, its clear he talks about how drones are simply another form of law enforcement and that jury trials and probable cause are a must. He probably just shortened his statement about the liquor thing more than he realized because if you listen to the rest of this interview, you don't get the sense that he really means "Its okay to just kill a dude coming out of a liquor store if you think he robbed it".
If you listen to the rest of the video, its really hard to believe that the guy who says what Rand says, really meant what you guys are taking that one statement to mean.

Free market capitalism isn't right for America because it works better. It's right because it's free (and it works better).

It is as much about the

It is as much about the realization that we were told in a Rand acceptable world drones were generally bad and now he has lethal ones shooting armed robbers coming out of a store. It was a bit of a shock even if he honestly misspoke. This is not his only slide on issues we know of and it deserves scrutiny. Just when I want to lean in behind the guy to help him he diverges from the positions I can support. Without a 30 year record we are doing our best to try and figure out who this guy is regardless of his last name and which group he is pandering (excuse me,,, tailoring his message to) to that day.

The liberty folks tend to have a low regard to tailored messages and we tend to pay attention.

“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.

"we were told in a Rand acceptable world...

...drones were generally bad."

No, that is not what you were told. What Rand was filibustering about and what he's been talking about for months is not that drones are bad; it's that the unconstitutional use of drones is bad.

"Alas! I believe in the virtue of birds. And it only takes a feather for me to die laughing."

You are correct. "Generally

You are correct. "Generally bad" was far to loose of a statement. I have tried to respond to many people tonight should have fleshed that out better for you. Glad Rand has already done the same for us tonight.

“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.

Let me get this straight...

Killing Anwar al-Awlaki, an American citizen who was plotting terrorist attacks, can cause a man to stand up and filibuster for hours about drones; but shooting some poor soul who needed to rob 50 dollars from a liquor store is no problem.

Is that what we're talking about?

"Is that what we're talking about?"

We're talking about using lethal force to stop an armed criminal.

"Alas! I believe in the virtue of birds. And it only takes a feather for me to die laughing."

From what? This is

From what?
This is important.

Lethal force would only be justified if he was threatening a human directly while fleeing. Is the drone going to determine this?

Lethal force is not justified if he is fleeing the seen of a crime.

Unless of course you have tried him and convicted him and are now ready to sentence him at the door of the liquor store.

Gee I sure hope he wasn't just a guy fleeing the scene that was picking up beers for a costume party???

Careful what you wish for you might end up before judge Dread yourself someday and not even know it. How sad would that be for you?

“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.

You're reading too much into the example.

All that Rand was trying to say is that in a situation where it is appropriate to use lethal force, there's nothing wrong with using a drone instead of a gun. Analyzing his example to see whether it meets the condition of a situation where lethal force is appropriate is missing the point.

"Alas! I believe in the virtue of birds. And it only takes a feather for me to die laughing."

wellhe tried...but he didn't

well he tried...but he didn't succeed. The example was HORRIBLE and not a justified way of dealing with a fleeing robber.

- Brennan

Yeah

But I think his example just wasn't good enough. He really didn't mean it that way. He did mess up big time. He should stay away from Fox and all those clowns. Don't even bother.

I'd be Okay with a Retraction...

..I know the mainstream republicans dislike apologies and retractions; but I think it's courageous to admit when you're wrong.

Hopefully we get something on the lines of a retraction.

He

Already did on his facebook page.

He didn't retract anything

...he clarified for the hard of thinking.

"Alas! I believe in the virtue of birds. And it only takes a feather for me to die laughing."

Seems to me that Rand's

Seems to me that Rand's comment here had an implied missing middle statement -- that the robber was branishing a weapon, threatening with the weapon. Police are not justified in shooting a robber who has already completed the robbery when the robber is not threatening anyone. Neither is a drone controller justified in doing so. I'm sure Rand gets this.

However if the fleeing robber is threatening with a weapon, the circumstances change. It's no longer about $50 or the robbery; it's about the lives of the police officers and bystanders.

I'm fine with police using advanced technology. The worry for me is that our technology keeps removing us from the blood and guts of violence. Guns did a similar thing three centuries ago when they became both more accurate and widely available. They made it easier to kill because killing was more removed. Bombs certainly have as well. Killing by drone removes the act even further.

It just seems to be that human judgement is so enmeshed with the visceral response we have to the experience of violence, that if we remove ourselves even further...I don't know what the "if" is actually. It just makes me a bit queasy.

Can drones even aim at a shoulder or knee? Or is is all top of the cranium? Can drones fire warning shots that are meaningful to a flipped-out, on-the-run robber? I don't know. I hope that Rand is not suggesting that drones should shoot some idgit who hit up a shop for $50 and has a gun on him. I hope he means an idgit who is threatening people with that gun. In which case, the $50 heist isn't the drone-worthy crime, it's the imminent threat to innocent life that is. I hope he just misspoke.

Of course

Machines can do anything, didn't you watch Robocop ? ? ; )

Anyway, there must also be an implied idea about the type of weapon on the drone. Cops don't use RPGs to stop fleeing criminals during a car chase. We'd assume he would be against using hellfire missiles on criminals too.