Thursday, April 25, 2013

Rand Paul Has Not Flip-Flopped on Drones, He’s Been Consistently Wrong

Guillermo Jimenez writes:
[O]n Fox Business last Tuesday April 23, Rand Paul had this to say:

“Here’s the distinction — I have never argued against any technology being used against having an imminent threat an act of crime going on,” Paul said. “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.

Now, while it may surprise you to hear these comments from Rand, it may surprise you even further to know that this is indeed not a political flip-flop on Rand’s part – In fact, he said nearly the exact same thing during his historic 13 hour filibuster on the Senate Floor on March 6:

If some guy’s robbing a liquor store two blocks from here and the policemen come up and he comes out brandishing a gun, he or she can be shot. They once again don’t get Miranda Rights, they don’t get a trial, they don’t get anything. If you come out brandishing a weapon and people are threatened by it, you can be shot. So it’s important to know what we’re talking about. We’re not talking about the guy coming out of the liquor store with a weapon. Even a drone could kill him if the FBI had drones. So my objection to drones isn’t so much the technology. There may be a use in law – for law enforcement here. But there are also potential, great potential for abuses.

So, for all you hardcore Rand Paul 2016′ers out there – you’re right, Rand Paul has not flipped flopped on the issue of drones. He’s been very consistent. He has said, repeatedly now, the State can and should execute Americans via hellfire missile death from the sky machines – if, they pose an imminent threat – including thieves, having just robbed a store.


  1. This is a pretty dumb statement by Rand. How can he not see the difference between a drone killing a liquor store robber w/ a hellfire missile as opposed to a police officer just shooting the suspect? So now not only do we kill the robber, but we're ok w/ the FBI blowing up the liquor store owner's private property, and potentially the adjacent building(s)? What if there are other American civilians in that same liquor store? Justifiable collateral damage? SMH @ the stupidity of this...

  2. I don't see what the issue is. Rand Paul is just using a bad example. The principle is completely fine. If someone poses an imminent threat, yes, imminent as in immediate, not the bullshit Obama's lawyers come up with, then the technology used to defend against that person and possibly kill them isn't the issue.

    The only issue that comes up with technology is the collateral damage it will do. So maybe with a drone, you'd only want to do it if the radius is big enough that the drone will only hit its intended target. And if we think that drones will only rarely be usable like that, then they should only be used rarely.

    If someone comes out of a coffee shop with a machine gun and ak-47 and is shooting everyone around him, do you really care if the cops kill him with a pistol or a sniper? A knife or a grenade? We want to avoid hurting other people, sure, so we should use smaller weapons generally, but if the situation is right, it's even possible a drone could be used!