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the 4th amendment issues be cleared up and the NDAA and Patriot acts and all other unconstitutional orders and regs be repealed, I would then consider the use of drones as a cost effective replacement for helicopters in non-lethal configurations only with warrant based and active scene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

Yes I am serious.

Double speak may work for a politician trying to appease, but I won't support it. It should be easy for Rand Paul to say it is unacceptable for law enforcement to kill ANY suspect with a drone, even if they are walking out of a liquor store with $50 and a gun, as he said. What Rand Paul said wasn't a mis-statement. He was clearly trying to say he supports law enforcement using drones (even armed drones) in hot pursuit, just that he doesn't support them using drones to spy on us unchecked. It brings up the obvious point of who will check the power of the state when you say government can use drones a little bit, just not too much.

It reminds me of a quote from Rand Paul's father about someone being "a little bit pregnant". You either are or aren't. This most recent drone double speak is much like his foreign aid position (or non-position). Rand Paul wants to cut foreign aid, but start with countries "burning our flag", and don't immediately cut aid to Israel, and make sure there are no "draconian" cuts in aid to Israel. Are you for or against foreign aid? Rand's positions of trying to straddle the fence are a major turn off.

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

Rand's statement regarding this

WASHINGTON, D.C. - 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

Ron Paul convert from the Heart of Dixie

If I lose my arms or legs and

If I lose my arms or legs and lived from a predator missile fired from a drone while it was trying to kill the other person who was robbing the liquor store, How much money would I get for damages from the government in a law suite?

Some of the folks bashing in

Some of the folks bashing in this post have made the Drudge report article with RED title!

Layers upon layers

In the back and forth over the banning of DPers, I made this comment to Nystrom yesterday:

"It has been a really hard week. I did not MEAN to realize that every significant event I can recall leads back to the government... but consider Rand Paul.
He did a filibuster, demanding to know if American citizens on American soil could be droned. Maybe you heard about it? One of the examples he cited was "What if a cafe in Boston got bombed?" Surely that is coincidence... or did they send Rand a message? Maybe you are some planned "collateral damage" - maybe people on your site ask too many questions... I don't know. How deep do they play? Do they plan things generations in advance? Who will be the HAPPIEST to learn you have banned people? Now we have an American citizen, on American soil, stripped of his rights, and soon we will re-visit the drone question, and Rand will be "proven" to have been foolish... Inch by inch..."

I wish I was psychic, but I am just cynical and proven right too damned often.

This is the article that got my posting privileges revoked:
http://bklim.newsvine.com/_news/2013/05/12/18212165-dr-stan-...

I agree with FISHYCULTURE---

I can't believe RAND actually said that! I mean, it's not like the guy was in prison, convicted, and broke out!

No, he wants to DRONE citizens and not give them the right to due process. Forget the fact that the guy robbing a store WASN'T the guy who committed the crime, but WAS the guy who used his own gun to pursue the guy!! JUST KILL'M ALL!! Why not? What an idiot.

RAND PAUL.......is NOT...........RON PAUL, period.

Neil Cavuto tried to bail him out by saying he's worried about the fact they can go after the "wrong guy", then, rebuild the case to make "that guy" look like the wrong guy. What a catastrophe for stupid Rand!

This is a textbook example of paranoia.

I mean that literally.

I know you disregard psychiatry as a massive conspiracy theory, FishyCulture, but what you just said is amazingly paranoid.

Before you start wondering if "they" are trying to assassinate Michael Nystrom, be assured that Alex Jones is broadcasting safely. David Icke is broadcasting. Every one of the sensational fear-mongering conspiracy theorists are broadcasting and alarming their audiences every single day. Until they start getting assassinated, I'm pretty sure us nobody Daily Paulers are in no danger.

**edit**

I mean this dead seriously- I think you should go talk to some people. I don't mean get drugged up or anything ridiculous, I mean go talk to some mental health professionals living in the real world who can help you get back to reality.

I have to agree. I've

I have to agree. I've actually been there. It's sick. It will drive someone banana sandwiches. It's not a fun place to be. My husband has helped me put things into perspective. It's good to talk to people in the real world.

I am very surprised that you are female.

It doesn't affect whether I agree or disagree with any of your comments (you are controversial based on my up and down votes btw, sometimes in the same thread), but it is always strange to realize someone is a completely different age and/or gender than you expect. It gives more personality to someone's perspective.

But yeah seriously I am worried about fishyculture. She won't respond to me directly anymore. I have contacted her through email and through the DP to no response. I was not looking for a fight, but to talk outside of a public forum. Her and I have more in common than I think she realizes.

How did you snap out of it?

How did I snap out of it? I

How did I snap out of it? I can't really explain. I didn't like feeling that way. It helps to have a good husband.

Controversial??? Me?

This just in

Per Rand's Facebook

"Official statement from Sen. Paul addressing the proper and constitutional use of 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.""

The PROBLEM with Rand's comments is

The "problem" with Rand is that he puts WAY TOO MUCH TRUST in government, the FBI, and the liars in D.C. to make those decisions!

The police SHOULD ALWAYS HAVE A WARRANT----with NO exceptions!

"ongoing, imminent threat"

A loophole large enough to drive a genocide through.
I don't care for politicians, they get a little power, and then spin and weave to try to keep their power. Once upon a time, there would be an exception to that statement.
Listen, Rand, there is an ongoing, imminent threat to my rights. I hope one day you decide to "compromise" with me and spit out some truth instead of always compromising with my tormenters and spitting out puke like that.
How about a FULL RETRACTION of that ridiculous statement?

This is the article that got my posting privileges revoked:
http://bklim.newsvine.com/_news/2013/05/12/18212165-dr-stan-...

I agree with Rand

All technology is on the table. We can't put the Genie back in the bottle. The best we can do is take an axe to the criminal code. The technology is not going away, but if we pare the law back to the basics, it will pose little threat to those other than the murderer, the thief, the rapist, etc.

Leges sine moribus vanae

We should at the very very

We should at the very very least get rid of the Patriot act and NDAA before putting them in the skys don't you think?

Just because we can does not mean we should. This question is going to get big in the coming months and years.

“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.

At the very least

The standard should be: No victim; No crime. Blaming the instrument is what the gun-grabbers do.

Leges sine moribus vanae

wow totally going to write

wow totally going to write this guy off now.... still have hope for Gary Johnson

His reply to comments on the Cavuto interview can be found

@ www.paul.senate.gov/?p=press_release&Id=779

"Hence, naturally enough, my symbol for Hell is something like the bureaucracy of a police state or the office of a thoroughly nasty business concern." ~~C.S. Lewis
Love won! Deliverance from Tyranny is on the way! Col. 2:13-15

i stand with rand

i want the freedom to have armed drones protect my private property 24/7 from thieves, home invader rapist and the police/government officials. i would sleep much better at night if i had a few drones.

Official Daily Paul BTC address: 16oZXSGAcDrSbZeBnSu84w5UWwbLtZsBms
My ฿itcoin: 17khsA7MvBJAGAPkhrFJdQZPYKgxAeXkBY
http://www.dailypaul.com/303151/bitcoin-has-gone-on-an-insan...

He just reversed his opinion

See the comment above yours.

So now are you against him? Or do you still stand with him? Whichever way the wind blows - you stand with him?

allegory - ˈalɪg(ə)ri/ - noun - 1. a story, poem, or picture which can be interpreted to reveal a hidden meaning, typically a moral or political one.

he just clarified his opinion

you mean.
why you so butthurt?

if rand is against me having defense drones then i would disagree with him but i would still vote for him over hillary. i don't agree with everything ron does either. i suggest you pick a fight with someone else. i'm not your huckleberry.

Official Daily Paul BTC address: 16oZXSGAcDrSbZeBnSu84w5UWwbLtZsBms
My ฿itcoin: 17khsA7MvBJAGAPkhrFJdQZPYKgxAeXkBY
http://www.dailypaul.com/303151/bitcoin-has-gone-on-an-insan...

Funny thing is that here in AZ

Funny thing is that here in AZ, there are stores that sell both liquor and guns.

So one could be all happy, walking out with a bottle of booze and a newly acquired firearm and BOOM !!! Blown to bits because the drone operator had the coordinates wrong and the crime was actually happening at a store 2 blocks away.

Things are going to get very interesting in this country on the future.

Resist the temptation to feed the trolls.

Well then...I sure hope you

Well then...I sure hope you won't be shooting people in these liqueur store/gun shops.

I sure hope you adjust your meds.

.

Resist the temptation to feed the trolls.

Funny, I don't take meds. If

Funny, I don't take meds.

If a person can protect themselves, why can't an officer protect the public from an eminent threat?

And I don't shoot people.

Seems you missed the point of my comment.

Resist the temptation to feed the trolls.

I think some are reacting to

I think some are reacting to fast. If I understand correctly, Rand isn't talking about shooting a missile at a criminal in front of a store. They have drones with firearms attached to them that would allow an officer to remove himself from the danger.

I'm going to assume Rand wasn't talking about a Predator drone considering he filibustered just that issue for 13 hours and made a mockery of those assumed powers by Obama.

So what is the difference if you are killed

By a bullet or a missile? Your still killed right?

For Freedom!
The World is my country, all mankind is my brethren, to do good is my religion.

If someone robs a liquor

If someone robs a liquor store and starts shooting people while getting away, doesn't authorize lethal force? What's it matter if a cop neutralizes you or the cop flies a little RC drone to the criminal and puts a couple rounds in him?