6 votes

Rand Paul’s Spokesperson: No Retraction On Drone Statement

Rand Paul responded to the firestorm he caused with his comments yesterday, which many interpreted as a flip flop in his stance on the use of drones. He released this statement today in an attempt to clarify his meaning:

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.

Hmm, well considering that the instance he cited yesterday about what seems to be a very ordinary crime circumstance, where a robber emerges from a liquor store and is killed via drone, that statement doesn’t really hold up.

I guess we’d like to give him the benefit of the doubt on this one (as we have to do so many, many times..), but Foreign Policy asked:

..if he was retracting his hypothetical about an armed liquor store thief being killed by a drone, his spokeswoman Moira Bagley told Foreign Policy “not retracting.”

Continue Reading



Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

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

people who bought into this "kill a robber on site" noise

really are stupid, i have to say.

you people aught to have your head checked.

What are we supposed to do?

Imagine what he *really* means is something different than what he says, and just interpret his political code? He literally said that and his spokesman confirmed the statement.

Looking forward to the retraction of the non retraction retracting the retraction.

http://lionsofliberty.com/
*Advancing the Ideas of Liberty Daily*

My days

of trying to mesh politician's slippery statements with my own morals ended long ago. I know where I stand on drones used by the State, and it is NOT with Rand. Rand very well might win the Republican nomination, but he's damaging prospects for the advancement of liberty. We need to continue to hold his feet to the fire when he endorses coercive force by the State and praise him when he defends individual liberty.

Trust not in princes

He should have said:

"Fighting terrorism and capturing terrorists must be done while preserving our constitutional protections. This was NOT demonstrated last week in Boston. As we all seek to prevent future tragedies, we must continue to bear this in mind."

Locking down an entire town and pointing rifles at people who look out the window is a recipe for the death of bystanders and huge temptation for government psychopaths who need an excuse for another round of fear-mongering.

Vickie

This really does demonstrate the problem

This really does demonstrate the problem Rand..he is trying to please two different crowds - the "Ron Paul enthusiasts" - who are generally against the War on Terror and don't buy into it even as legitimate concept - and the neocons / War on Terror / State power lovers.

While strange bedfellows can always be made on certain issues, these two groups are so diametrically opposed in their beliefs. Rand would do better to try and teach the "neoconny" folks a thing or two, instead of just pandering to them.

http://lionsofliberty.com/
*Advancing the Ideas of Liberty Daily*

The two crowds

those willing to learn
those who think they know