Rand Paul supports domestic drone strikes

M

MSTeacher

Member
Jun 19, 2010
2,076
73
48
✈
and apparently that's just fine with The American Conservative and in keeping with his prior positions on the issue.

some Randroid senator said:
I’ve never argued against any technology being used when you have an imminent threat, an active crime going on. If someone comes out of a liquor store with a weapon and fifty dollars in cash, I don’t care if a drone kills him or a policeman kills him.

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 watch your activities. If there’s a killer on the loose in a neighborhood, I’m not against drones being used.
Click to expand...

Stay classy Rand.

No, Rand Paul Didn’t Just Switch His Position on Drones | The American Conservative

Rand Paul Shockingly Now Supports The Use Of Drones On US Soil To Kill Americans-So What Was That Filibuster Thing All About? - Forbes
 


What is the difference between a policeman shooting someone, a drone bombing someone, and a manned aircraft bombing someone?
 
mattseh said:
What is the difference between a policeman shooting someone, a drone bombing someone, and a manned aircraft bombing someone?
Click to expand...

300px-Paris_Tuileries_Garden_Facepalm_statue.jpg
 
At first I was like...

A police officer at the scene of a crime, if the situation calls for it, is allowed to use deadly force. A cop is perfectly justified to take the life of a criminal who’s shooting at him or at others.

Rand Paul is merely saying that in such a situation the use of a drone to kill such a criminal is equally acceptable. There is no real difference between a cop shooting and killing a criminal with a shotgun VS that criminal being shot and killed with a drone.

It seems to me that people have gone berserk over the mere use of drones. Drones, like any other tool, are not innately evil. They are just a tool, it’s all about how they are used.
Click to expand...

But then... You KNOW they will be abused for whatever reason the gov sees fit, so it's best to just avoid the damn things in the first place...

And then...

Am I the only person left in America who’s concerned about how “exciting” the language of law enforcement is becoming? But let’s be honest – a guy coming out of a liquor store with fifty bucks and a gun, unless he’s coming out shooting, is not an “active shooter.”

Centuries of Anglo-American jurisprudence considered that deadly force was only an acceptable response to an imminent threat to life or limb (though there was a period when “property” was included). A robber running out of a liquor store with his ill-gotten gains in hand is simply no longer an imminent threat. Were he apprehended at that point, there is no way he would be subject to capital punishment.

Thus, to suggest that it’s okay to kill him with a drone is ludicrous, goes against centuries of history, and is nothing more than typical police state tactics of “execution, THEN verdict.” With the “verdict” being nothing more than whatever spin is applied by the complaisant media lickspittles.*
Click to expand...

How often is there really a guy going crazy with a gun that can't be stopped by the police/SWAT? ... And even if some guy robbed the store and left, he shouldn't be shot down.. What, he just robs a store and then starts killing people outside for no reason? How often does that really happen? If it does it's inside a mall or a building, drones serve no lethal purpose in the majority of situations, which take places inside buildings.

And the cliff hanger...

In the TIME it will take to get a warrant from a Judge, you really think the police/etc haven't already gotten to scene yet? Are these going to become instant warrants or what? ...

....

Drones are a major violation of freedom, you really want to be watched over? That's basically like a police man walking on your property, or coming in your house without a warrant just to see what you're doing.. That's not freedom...

Son, I am disappoint. - Ron Paul
 
Pro tip: use your drone to go to the liquor store, buy your booze, and deliver it back to your house.
 
Rand Paul: Summary Justice for All.

That's all American needs is some drone operator sitting in an air-conditioned cubicle dispensing street justice. And because he will be working for the government, he won't be responsible for accidentally killing anyone innocent. Sovereign immunity.
 
mattseh said:
What is the difference between a policeman shooting someone, a drone bombing someone, and a manned aircraft bombing someone?
Click to expand...

Umm wait, I think I've got this. The bullets will put some holes in someone but the bombs will completely obliterate them. Amirite?
 
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."
 
It is because of stuff like this that makes me think there is a possibility that the future will be like this:

BrokenSeaAudioProductionsEscapeFromNewYork565.jpg
 
The son who disappointed his pop-pop said:
I don’t care if a drone kills him or a policeman kills him.
Click to expand...

How a drone kills a person:

OAAksBd.jpg


How a policeman kills a person:

Em0QTnj.jpg


Not saying I inherently support either option but fuck. Big difference.


mattseh said:
Same outcome AFAICT.
Click to expand...

Bombs tend to kill more than one person.
 
JarredLv said:
How a drone kills a person:

OAAksBd.jpg


How a policeman kills a person:

Em0QTnj.jpg


Not saying I inherently support either option but fuck. Big difference.




Bombs tend to kill more than one person.
Click to expand...

They look similar, just one is bigger. There are also machine guns, which can easily kill multiple people.

The focus on the tools used allows people to ignore the actions of government (killing, righteous or not), instead focusing on trivia.
 
Rand Paul isn't really principled in his beliefs, he's nothing like his father, but he's better than the alternatives IMO.

Drones will end up in law enforcement (already have actually) whether we like it or not and will at some point be used for killing individuals like Dorner.

Drones are here to stay unfortunately, the mission creep is inevitable.

Rand may not be half the man his father was, but he does often leave me wondering what of what he says he actually believes, what of what he says is pandering to the right and what is pandering to the libertarian movement? He leaves you second guessing his real principals all the time.
 
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xPQJMdTVshk]Rand Paul is STILL right about drones! #standwithrand - YouTube[/ame]
 
If someone comes out of a liquor store with a weapon and fifty dollars in cash, I don’t care if a drone kills him or a policeman kills him.
Click to expand...

Can a drone tackle a criminal, and arrest him, without killing him?

Can a drone take you to court and give you a fair trial?

p86EUJc.png
 
jryan21 said:
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."
Click to expand...


Yeap, just like wire taps. They should be introduced based on 'extreme circumstances'. And as we have seen with the wire taps, it has stayed that way; only in extreme... Oh... wait...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back