-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


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the 4th amendment issues be cleared up and the NDAA and Patriot acts and all other unconstitutional orders and regs be repealed, I would then consider the use of drones as a cost effective replacement for helicopters in non-lethal configurations only with warrant based and active scene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

drones and the police state

If anyone hasn't noticed you have no rights.Watertown is a great example.America is LONG_____________________________________ gone and has been for years.

Take it Easy

No need to panic. Not like Ron Paul hasn't said something stupid before. Rand does need to clarify a bit but I do see how the statement could be taken two different ways.

Rand is not Ron

You are a tool Rand.
Change your name please, your embarrassing your dad

DRUDGE Linking To This Thread

This thread is now being linked too via Drudge. Well.. sort of.. Drudge is linking to - http://blog.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2013/04/23/ron_paul_fans... - Which is now linking to this thread.

And I'd like to know more about what Rand said and his intention. He's kind of said before that drones could be used for local law enforcement, has he not? He's just had a problem with it being used for DRONE STRIKES (armed drones) against U.S. citizens who receive no due-process.

Let's not go on an emotional tantrum. The key for him, maybe not for us, is the due process and drone strike part.

deacon's picture

where is the due process

in killing someone at a liquor store?
either with a drone or an officer
there cannot be due process when the alleged perp(s)
are killed in cold bllod
and what rand said about them drones,is they will be armed
with the intent to use,and there will be no need for a judge
or overseer to sign a paper for them to kill
that will be a judgement call,and at times theirs lacks

If we deny truth before your very eyes,then the rest of what we have to say,is of little consequence

Imminent threat....if a guy

Imminent threat....if a guy is running around with a gun shooting at people a cop would certainly (and rightfully) take him out, so why not a drone?

A nation of sheep breeds a government of wolves.

deacon's picture

the statement posed

if found guilty..they would get their just desserts
was the alleged liquor store robber guilty at this point?
i say no
i was under the impression them drones were for surveillance
now they are armed!!!
rand said he doesn't care if if the perp has a gun and $50 in cash
did he say waving it around? is he shooting at people?
no,he didn't say that,ones here are reading into his words what he meant to say,and he stated he didn't care if a cop or drone killed him
again,where is the due process? where is the jury? what about the trial?
and i can guarantee no judge will ever be involved in signing for use of the drones because the cops will say it was an eminent threat
them drones will be judge,jury and executioner just as the cops are now
and it will be done with impunity

If we deny truth before your very eyes,then the rest of what we have to say,is of little consequence

I agree that is what he said,

I agree that is what he said, but I do believe he didn't articulate it correctly. I hope he clarifies this.

Update: "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."

-Rand Paul

All you haters, settle down

A nation of sheep breeds a government of wolves.

One more reason to NOT Stand

One more reason to NOT Stand With Rand!

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

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

Suspected bombers deserve right to trial but

$50 liquor store thief does not.

I have ZERO tolerance for drone gun platforms.

Autonomous weapons simply are not worth the risk. They can be hacked and they can not be prosecuted for homicide.

The use of recon drones by the government should be carefully restricted to "extraordinary circumstances," (i.e., hostage situations or bomb/chemical/biological threats.

As for me, if I see a drone, I am gone to shoot it down; no hesitation; no remorse; no fear of consequences. End of discussion.

Could have been

He could have been more clear for sure, but he was talking about a firefight situation where he's coming out with the gun and going after people. Even in that case, he said there'd need to be a warrant issued by a judge for it. In context, it's not what the MSM is trying to make it out to be.

Eric Hoffer

deacon's picture

yes he coud have been more clear

what worries me about his talk was the use of armed drones on the american public
plus the fact that cops nowadays get a free pass when it comes to
shooting first,and no questions later
but my biggest concern is this,i am getting MY point across better
than rand :)

If we deny truth before your very eyes,then the rest of what we have to say,is of little consequence

Drones are just a weapon

Both flying weapons and flying spy cameras are legal and their use in extreme scenarios is largely accepted, you just still have to follow the constitution. A camera in a public place to help solve a crime, I have no problem with. When you look into someone's home, and you don't even have a warrant (or you have an unconstitutional warrant), that's a problem.

Drones shouldn't be prohibited or condemned. Their unconstitutional use should. Drones don't kill people, people kill people.

Freedom in our lifetime! - fiol.us