Rand Paul Gets Cutesy on DronesSubmitted by Marc Clair on Tue, 04/23/2013 - 17:31
Earlier today Rand Paul made some comments about the government’s use of drones that had his lackey media director Jack Hunter racing to his Macbook Air to defend him. The comments came during an interview on Fox Business with Neil Cavuto. For those that like context, the conversation relating to the comments in question are below.
The offending comment in question was when Paul seemed to express that it would be just fine if a drone were to take out a man suspected of robbing a liquor store or “carrying a gun”. Paul says,
Here’s the distinction, Neil — I have never argued against any technology being used against having an imminent threat an act of crime going on. 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, but it’s different if they want to come fly over your hot tub, or your yard just because they want to do surveillance on everyone, and they want to watch your activities.
Paul is correct to make the important distinction that the discussion about drones is not necessarily about the technology itself but about the way that technology is used by government. Drones could have excellent use in the private sector. For example, a rancher could use drones to help keep an eye on his cattle and watch for any breach in his fences. It is true that the technology of drones, in and of itself, is not evil.
What is worrisome about Paul’s further statements is the suggestion that a suspect in a crime, or at least one doing something as horrible as “carrying a gun”, should ever be killed by police or government agents at all. Anyone suspected of a crime should be treated as “innocent until proven guilty” – even if they are carrying a gun. Remember that whole “2nd Amendment” thing?