Tuesday, April 23, 2013

Rand Paul Endorses Using Drones to Kill Suspected Liquor Store Robbers

By James Bovard

Sen. Rand Paul did great work focusing America’s attention on drone killings last month during his filibuster. I was surprised to learn today that Sen. Paul endorses using drones to kill suspected liquor store robbers: “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…”

Lots of folks I know with concealed carry permits (or with concealed weapons regardless) have $50 on them when they leave the liquor store…

Sen. Paul also apparently would not object to using drones domestically in critical police actions: ““If there is a killer on the loose in a neighborhood, I’m not against drones being used to search them.” Paul also said in the Salon article: “Here’s the distinction, I have never argued against any technology being used against having an imminent threat an act of crime going on…”

“Imminent threats” have a way of breeding like lemmings….

Read the rest here.


  1. That is bullshit Bob. It's one thing to have reasonable criticisms toward Rand. It's another to endorse left wing, incoherent smear pieces just to further your hatred of Rand.

    Rand's position is clear as day on this issue and his position on drone use is well within the bounds of being a libertarian in good standing. Using drones when there are immediate security threats is correct. I doubt Ron Paul's position is different.

  2. Rand once again displays what a "loose cannon on deck" looks like.

    How can anyone with national political aspirations make such asinine statements? Does he really think this won't come back to haunt him? I used to think he was being controlled, but it appears, like most politicians, he's just dumb.

    As John Stewart said, "Don't they know we're video taping them?"

  3. Mark,

    James Bovard? Left wing?? You don't read much, do you?

  4. Rand's words were unambiguous. The case of an armed individual leaving a liquor store with a gun suffices - in the mind of Rand Paul - as fair game for execution, whether by a police officer or by an armed drone. Whatever else he may have meant, his words were utterly reckless.

    In the referenced interview Rand lauds the American judicial system as a hallmark of justice which protects the rights of the individual. He follows this with a hypothetical example in which an armed person leaving a liquor store with a gun and fifty dollars in hand warrants death - immediate death. Let's bypass the American system of justice and at once be judge, jury and executioner.

    A drone strike? On the streets of America? Targeting a suspected armed robber?

    Imagine it: "Today a law enforcement drone fired a small missile at an armed robbery suspect. The suspect was killed. Also killed were 6 individuals at a nearby coffee house. Numerous injuries were also reported along with 8 parked cars being destroyed. The coffee house suffered major damage."

  5. Although it does seem as if Paul accepts a wider use of drones than most of us would, this seems to have been blown out of proportion. Paul's comment doesn't sound very well thought out and it goes against everything else he ever said about drones before, especially concerning his filibuster comments about how poorly drone warfare has been engaged overseas. So it seems more likely that Paul simply created a poor "what if" scenario on the fly - I don't think he's actually arguing that people on the street can be smoked by a drone for stealing a wad of cash and a bottle of Rocket Fuel.