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the 4th amendment issues be cleared up and the NDAA and Patriot acts and all other unconstitutional orders and regs be repealed, I would then consider the use of drones as a cost effective replacement for helicopters in non-lethal configurations only with warrant based and active scene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

Seems like Wishful in his/her

Seems like Wishful in his/her comment we must assume a lot some times with Rand. Personally not that psyched about that. He has to stopp the tailored message thing right away. Everybody hears everything now with the internet. You can go to Israel and talk about foreign aid and Iran and think the dailypaul is not listening to that in real time and going to call you out on the group speak.

“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.

YES. This is so important.

YES. This is so important. We need to remember and not let our technology stray away from the hands of humans. Humans need to be able to control technology and with advances we are seeing more and more of a auto-run set of standards which can create a dangerous environment...especially because drones and such are remotely run and can be hijacked remotely possibly.

I too am hoping he just misspoke as well but I think he needs too clarify his remarks and convince us he wasn't just playing politics.

- Brennan

Thank you so much!

Thank you for writing this and saving me doing it. I thought your exact message as I wrote the original post but, for your very same reasons of being left a bit "queasy" by Rand's actual words, I thought it needed to be put out as I did without formulating my own apology for Rand. I felt that it would be inappropriate as I am not comfortable defending him for many reasons yet as I did his father who was sometimes famously hard to understand for those who were not used to listening to his speaking style.

I must admit many times during the last election cycle, especially during the televised debates I had wished Nigel Farage could have occupied Ron Paul's vocal cords to drive those neocons over the fence. Was not to be. Sadly, Rand can do better but he chooses to speak to groups rather than principle a little too often.

I wish Rand would quit politicking and unify the base so we can finish what we started and take the damn party over and then the country. As of today I am going to have to see him stop with the tailored messaging and find his center before I will put sweat to brow again for a Paul president.

“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 bet. I guess I'm not

You bet. I guess I'm not thinking so much in terms of make an apology for Rand. I'm just trying to put his words in context. Too often folks -- I don't just mean liberty folks, but everyone -- wets their pants to take some comment out of context for their own pissing contests. I don't know of any person, of any political persuasion, who would champion death as the penalty for robbery.

The odds that Rand does, are slim to none.

I hear you on the speaking business. Ron is one kind of poor speaker; Rand is another. Ron has loads of passion, but hasn't mastered how to speak his passionate message to target an audience. Rand has this bland quality that I can't quite put my finger on. He says lots of the right things, but there's something careful and expressionless that puts my guard up. Who know? I'd probably take the worst of both of them were I on the speaking circuit.

No investigation going on

No investigation going on with this example. Just shoot the guy...for $50, weapon or not, no trial no capture, no investigation. Rand is a class 1 sycophant tap dancing for the national stage. Give him more time and he will talk himself in circles.

"Just shoot the guy...for $50, weapon or not"

Did you listen to the interview?

Rand's example was of a person with a weapon. The point is, in a situation where it's appropriate to use lethal force, it makes no difference what weapon is used: drone or gun.

I don't know anyone could honestly read anything else into Rand's comments.

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

But you failed to give what I

But you failed to give what I would accept as an appropriate example...This example wreaks of bloodthirsty persecution without knowing any facts...and please don't tell me a drone is determining the facts around a fleeing man with a weapon on the ground... This is getting stupider and stupider. There may be some advanced technology here but very questionable personnel as usual.

If I'm following my color

If I'm following my color coding correctly, the response was to my example, which I made a point of saying was not just an armed robber fleeing, but an armed robber threatening innocents with a gun.

The facts are simply that the person is threatening to shoot others. I can't see how either a civilian, a police officer, or a drone operator would be out of line for taking down such a person.

The point of this action, really has, nothing to do with the robber, the $50, or that the guy used a gun during the theft. The only point is that a guy with a gun is threatening innocent people.

I don't know what color code

I don't know what color code you're going by but the example keeps changing to try and fit Rand's ill-spoken words. It doesn't matter how you rationalize this mindset that is taking over America but it is more dangerous than any fleeing robber of $50 waving a gun or not. If America is that threatened by such a domestic act of thievery that an entire nation shall be droned for such paranoia is beyond credible thinking on any level.

Why is this controversial?

If an armed man is in the process of committing a crime, it is perfectly legitimate to use force to stop him. As Rand says, what difference does it make whether it's a cop with a gun or a cop with a drone?

Drones aren't the problem (I assure you, the government is perfectly capable of oppressing and/or murdering you the old fashioned way: Hitler and Stalin had no drones). The problem is the use of drones for unconstitutional searches or the killing of people who are NOT in the process of committing a crime.

Rand said nothing in this interview contrary to anything he said before, and nothing contrary to libertarian principles.

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

Because

A drone attack could cause way more damage than just a gun from a cop.

Or maybe not

It makes no difference, but what if the drone were more accurate and circumspect (a slave to its programming) than a human shooter? The question of efficacy is not the point. Is there a substantive ethical distinction between the liquor store owner's drone taking out some free-lance collectivist, or the liquor store owner himself using his .38?

dynamite anthrax supreme court white house tea party jihad
======================================
West of 89
a novel of another america
https://www.smashwords.com/books/view/161155#longdescr

Ever heard of stray bullets?

But anyway that's beside the point. People are criticizing Rand as if he's advocating something unconstitutional. The use of drones may be unwise for various reasons, such as the potential for "collateral damage," but it is not in itself unconstitutional or a violation of anyone's rights. Whether the use of drones is legitimate or not depends entirely on HOW they're used - as with any other weapon. Rights can be violated just as easily with a gun, a sword, a baseball bat, etc. The technology itself is not the problem.

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

Yeah

I heard of them. A Drone is still a bigger impact.

Sometimes size DOESN'T matter

At least not in terms of ethics. Sure SOME drones shoot explosive missiles and are new and big and scary, but they can just as readily be rigged with smaller weapons or leaflets as well.

Over and over again, history teaches us two very important things about weapons:

1. There is no such thing as a dangerous weapon. There are good and bad people and there are appropriate tools.

2. It is ESSENTIAL that we (the unorganized militia) maintain parity with them (the occupation).

dynamite anthrax supreme court white house tea party jihad
======================================
West of 89
a novel of another america
https://www.smashwords.com/books/view/161155#longdescr

And as I said...

...that's beside the point.

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

What would be "contrary to libertarian principles"?

How about tanks in the streets of USA? How about armed police forcibly entering homes without warrant? What if police are allowed to use various types of rifles, shotguns, and pistols that all other citizens are legally prevented from owning? Maybe police should be allowed to fire hundred of rounds into a building (or a boat...) that a suspect is hiding in?

Oh wait...all of this stuff just happened a few days ago in Boston. I guess we already live in a libertarian utopia. Ignorance is Strength!!

We all want progress, but if you're on the wrong road, progress means doing an about-turn and walking back to the right road; in that case, the man who turns back soonest is the most progressive.

-C. S. Lewis

Response

"How about tanks in the streets of USA?"

What are the tanks doing?

"How about armed police forcibly entering homes without warrant?"

That would be a violation of property rights.

"What if police are allowed to use various types of rifles, shotguns, and pistols that all other citizens are legally prevented from owning?"

As would that.

"Maybe police should be allowed to fire hundred of rounds into a building (or a boat...) that a suspect is hiding in?"

Obviously that depends on the circumstances - as would all questions about exactly when/how force can be used against someone.

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

"What's the difference?"

Are you kidding me? Have you lost your mind? There is absolutely no acceptable reason why weaponized drones should be in our skies at this point in time. Actually, there's really no acceptable reason for weaponized drones in the middle east either... I guess I'm a radical?

You'd think any human with any survival instinct left in tact, would be opposed to this technology being beta tested over their home. Let's bear in mind, this technology is still in it's infancy, and no amount of test flights can approximate what it's going to actually be like when there are thousands of weaponized drones flying in the skies over our neighborhoods.

"Stand with Rand"? Are you kidding me? Have some of you folks really devolved to that level of unconditional support for a political figure? I like Rand and I hope he actually stands up for our liberty up there, but this isn't just a little misspeak as some have suggested. This is a complete 180° from his filibuster. I'm sorry, but the only reason it is acceptable for a police officer to shoot a robber, is if the robber is armed, and if he poses a threat to the officer or another citizen. A robber with a pistol poses no threat to a drone, and it is absolutely OVERKILL to fire down bullets or missiles at a person who knocked off a liquor store. Do the words collateral damage mean ANYTHING to you? Is that the world you want to live in? If it is, get the hell out of my country!

Response

"There is absolutely no acceptable reason why weaponized drones should be in our skies at this point in time."

I agree (and so does Rand). But the question is not whether drones should be used in the US, the question is whether it is unconstitutional or contrary to libertarian principles to use them. It isn't. Just because something (such as using armed drones in the US) is a bad idea doesn't mean it's a violation of the Constitution or of libertarian principles.

"This is a complete 180° from his filibuster"

No, it isn't. Killing an armed criminal in the process of committing a violent crime is entirely different from killing someone who the government suspects might commit a crime in the future. Likewise, shooting your neighbor when he breaks into your house at 3am is entirely different from shooting him because you suspect he might break into your house at some point in the future. Why is this difficult to understand?

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

Again...

Do you really want the police raining down fire from a drone on liquor store robbers, and whatever is in their immediate vicinity??? If the robber is unarmed, or not threatening anyone with a weapon at the time, what exactly is the reason for engaging them with a drone. Are we going to start being OK with shooting unarmed criminals in the back, merely because they disobey the police?

I argue that using a drone in the way that Rand suggested IS unconstitutional. A burglar or a robber is no threat to a weaponized drone, and cops don't make it a habit of shooting petty criminals who pose no immediate threat to anyone's life... On top of being unconstitutional, it's also immoral, and highly irresponsible. I don't want a common liquor store robber to be blown to small pieces by a weaponized drone. I'd rather they just get away with their $500 dollars until they can be apprehended based on the security camera footage. There's absolutely no need for a weaponized drone to be used for this sort of crime. In the case of a murderer or a terrorist, I'd still rather let them get away, than rain down fire from a unmanned drone. Please put your thinking cap on here... do you really want to open up this can of worms? Do you not realize that with NDAA and the Patriot Act, the federal government is going to have carte blanche to mow down "enemy combatants" with these drones???? Do you really want your nextdoor neighbors house to be blown to bits just because he might be a radical "jihadi"? Even if they have a warrant and a judges approval, I think I'd rather not have the brilliant minds of our federal government shooting missiles at my neighbors house. Come on, this is common sense...

I totally agree with you.I

I totally agree with you.I really had hope for him,now I don't know.
Why would he have a 12 hour filibuster on Drone use and then make a comment like that.It makes no sense to me.

My

Guess is because guys like me and you are not watching Fox. Who do you think is watching this? lol

Here's my view on drones

I'm curious about your opinions.

Let's say there is a missing child---in the middle of the woods. Using drones specifically for the purpose of finding the child---under the understanding that the drones would ONLY be used for this purpose, and that anything else that was found from this case can't be used in a different case (in other words, if the drones sees people smoking pot, it can't use this as evidence, as THEIR 4th amendment rights have been violated).

In this type of situation, I have no problem with drones.

Let's say that there is a 'murderer' on the loose---the person that people may have taken the above-mentioned child. If the law enforcement knows where he is, or where he probably is, and is given a warrant for his arrest, with the SAME understanding from above regarding other information being inadmissible in different cases---and using an UNARMED drone---I'm not sure I see a problem with drones being used this way.

I take an issue with Rand saying he doesn't care if it KILLS him or the police do---I don't like the idea of armed drones on American soil. Other than that, however, I don't have problems with the above painted scenario. But drones looking for stuff from above---where's the problem with that if we ensure that people's rights will not be infringed and their privacy will be protected from prosecution? NOTE: I know this probably only possible in the "ideal" world, but consider it.

Any thoughts? Am I missing something with this analysis? Please keep it civil, but I really am interested in your comments.

I Wonder, Can I Get Drone Insurance?

Should I be worried if a Drone accidentally drops some ordinance on my house?

How far will Drone technology evolve?

Will the MIC (Military Industrial Complex) build gender specific drones i.e., male and female? Will they mate with each other while flying around like dragonflies or damselflies?

Will I be libel in case a baby Drone falls from the sky? Do I have to report it to the FAA, the DOD or the DHS?

Will there be a national Drone tax?
Will Drones put sky writers out of business?
Will FEDX or UPS use Drones to deliver packages?

I heard a rumor that Drones are forming the NDA (National Drone Association). Do you think they'll go on strike anytime soon?

There's talk that Drones are learning to duplicate themselves. Should we call them, "Drone Clones"?

Will George Lucas make another installment of STAR WARS titled, (wait for it) ... DRONE WARS?

How long will I continue to DRONE on this subject?

Goodnight everybody :)

All I want to know is how

All I want to know is how much F-ing money I'm going to get for being collateral damage in a law suit from the government? Is that too much to ask?

This comment

This comment made me instantly think of Robot 1X from Futurama when you suggested it go on strike after doing all of our work. Thank you for that laugh. I absolutely love that cartoon.

He's talking about an armed

He's talking about an armed suspect who just robbed the place, and exited with a live firearm, threatening civilians. That person is an active threat and police should use force to capture him. If drones, and new technologies assist in the capture and the cease of the threat, than so be it. We shouldn't fear technology. The monitoring and assassination of non combative, non threatening people is the problem, and the concern.

Btw, why have we gotten so far away from the fiscal and monetary issues since the election? Every issue is about guns, gays, and drones. It's kind of annoying, and a huge distraction from our fiscal and monetary issues. I'm not saying it's irrelevant. I'm just saying the current debate is out of proportion.

"Where liberty is, there is my country." -Benjamin Franklin

Rand Paul 2016: Freedom is Slavery

.

We all want progress, but if you're on the wrong road, progress means doing an about-turn and walking back to the right road; in that case, the man who turns back soonest is the most progressive.

-C. S. Lewis

Are you serious?

Are you serious? Pulling out Orwell because of a mis-statement that nearly matches what he's been saying all along about drone usage in imminent danger situations?