11 votes

Rand Paul Statement on Domestic Drone Use

Issued in response to this

Any thoughts?

Sen. Paul Statement on Domestic Drone Use
Apr 23, 2013

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."



Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Excuse me Senator, but in case you weren't paying attention...

Constitutional protections were TRAMPLED in Boston last week.

They were not preserved.

A manhunt ensued without a warrant.

Military and police callously and carelessly waved 'weapons of war' in the direction of countless innocent Citizens.

People were ordered out of their homes at gun point, and their houses searched - all without warrants of any kind much less those required by the Constitution, specifically describing the places to be searched or the things to be seized.

Various levels of government, operating with willful and wonton disregard for public safety, the protections of the Constitution both State and Federal, and in direct violation of their several oaths of office, laid seige to the community of Watertown and terrorized numerous individuals, including women and children.

Boston last week is an example of what happens when Constitutional limitations are not respected and followed.

It was not an example of preserving them.

You don't get it...

Do you know how to even read?

All Rand is saying is --based upon what happened in Boston (the atrocious violations of civil liberties, the Martial Law, etc... which we all know he despises)-- that "our constitutional protections" must be preserved while fighting terrorism. He's emphasizing the NEED, the PRINCIPLE... not some notion that Boston was a good example. Rather the contrary.

Had he said "Fighting terrorism and capturing terrorists WAS done while preserving our constitutional protections.. [as] demonstrated in Boston..." Then, clearly, he would have contradiction himself.

Let's take another look at what he said:

"Fighting terrorism and capturing terrorists must be done while preserving our constitutional protections. This was demonstrated last week in Boston."

"This" is clearly referring to 'preserving our constitutional protections... while fighting terrorism and capturing terrorists.'

If Rand MEANT to say that the NEED was demonstrated, he didn't say so.

I'll agree if he meant the 'need' was demonstrated, rather than the 'preserving,' he used very poor phrasing. In fact, I'd say he fell grammatically on his face in the attempt.

I can read quite well.

Rand off the ban wagon

What Rand should have said is that drones should be banned. Period. Just like the use of chemical weapons on your own citizens to stop one alleged bad guy. Big Brother had no problem banning machine guns from ordinary citizens or taking any of our other rights away. We need all weapons to be banned from governments, not ordinary people.

Sen. Rand Paul - On Drone Use and Imminent Threat (Filibuster)

http://www.dailypaul.com/283247/sen-rand-paul-on-drone-use-a...

"I, __________, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oath_of_enlistment

There is no duration defined in the Oath

Rand's first backpedaling move

many more to come!

“Although it was the middle of winter, I finally realized that, within me, summer was inextinguishable.” — Albert Camus

"Armed drones should not be

"Armed drones should not be used in normal crime situations."

Then don't say you don't care if they are used in that manner.

ED 209 hearts Rand.

Drones are 100% anonymous and 100% unaccountable. They can abuse rights with impunity. If a cop irresponsibly shoots someone, he can be sued, fired, charged and imprisoned. If a machine does it, then what? There is 0% risk and 0% exposure for anyone deciding to use a drone for murder. Oh! My bad! The bot malfunctioned. It was on auto-pilot. Oops! We are going to have to debug the software. So sorry.
It is just like robo-voting machines. It is all rigged.
The idea that a robot be used to fight crime is absurd. The only reason to do it is to provide cover for abusive "law enforcement."

[F]orce can only settle questions of power, not of right. - Clyde N. Wilson

HE WHO HAS THE DRONE IS THE POWER BEHIND THE THRONE!

"HE WHO CONTROLS THE DRONE IS THE POWER BEHIND THE THRONE!"

People are missing the key danger in expanded drone use, which Cavuto touched on: Incidentals. "What if they see something bad happening along the way?"

"Bad" means what? A liquor store robbery? Or the Treasurer of Yonkers having a poolside tryst with someone other than his wife?

Combine the NSA permanent database of all electronic transmissions with continual drone surveillance, and whoever's got control of that can bribe or destroy ANYONE he or she wants.

This is not just a tyrannical weapon of war. Its an abusive weapon of corruption!

"Cowards & idiots can come along for the ride but they gotta sit in the back seat!"

rand your wrong

you did change it

if a man runs out a liquor store-----who has time to get a warrant
steal a car,,,rob a bank, and most any crime,,crimes are "quick" by there nature to avoid capture

you inferred drones are already in the air and ready to be used,,,, not get a warrant and get it up in the air

maybe he explained it bad ,,,,,, and the fact he had to clarify doesn't help

maybe rand needs to do less speeches and tv,,,, leave those 2 areas to the master---your dad

drones

drones for liquor store robberies,,, really????

it's being inferred elsewhere he meant use a missile on them,,,, but he means for apprehhension

i hugely disagree with rand here
sorry,,, but no,,,,,, your invading everyone's privacy in that act

i never thought about the heat sinking helo's,,,,, and many big cities have choppers flying round the clock,,, and i think i remember allegations of illegal drug searches from the heat signature,,,, and of officers laughing while watching a couple have sex too

maybe we are fringe and a minority,, because as a group,,, it's only us who see's the potential harm and abuse of these technologies ,,,, while others are begging for more

So My question is would you of used a Drone in Boston?

Who or whom is to determine an imminent threat? If an armed drone was used, is civilian causalites acceptable as it has been in other countries in which we have used them? Do the end results, justify the means?

We had to destroy Boston

in order to save it.

[F]orce can only settle questions of power, not of right. - Clyde N. Wilson

Bump

.

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.