PDA

View Full Version : Drones clarification?




juvanya
04-23-2013, 12:34 PM
Can anyone make heads or tails of this? It sounds like he changed his opinion 3 times in 24 hours, but maybe I am not understanding it.

This article is making the rounds on the internet, so it would be good for people to be prepared.

I dont understand why he feels the need to make these compromises. Drones are already controversial in the US and he is one to go against the trend on other issues, not as much as daddy, but still.


Now Rand Paul Thinks It’s OK To Kill U.S. Citizens With Drones On American Soil? (http://www.mediaite.com/tv/now-rand-paul-thinks-its-ok-to-kill-u-s-citizens-with-drones-on-american-soil/)


Remember when Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) stood up on the Senate floor for nearly 13 hours in an ideological protest of the Obama administration’s hypothetical authority to use drone technology to kill U.S. citizens on American soil? Well, now he’s saying killing a certain U.S. citizen on some specific American soil in Watertown, Massachusetts last Friday may not have been the worst thing in the world.

During an interview with Neil Cavuto on Fox Business Network Monday night, Paul attempted to make a distinction between the American “sitting in a café” example he has often cited and the “imminent threat” faced by Boston bombing suspect Dzhokhar Tsarnaev Friday night. “I’ve never argued against any technology being used when you have an imminent threat, an active crime going on,” Paul said. Though his next example offered up a disturbingly low bar for the predator drone option. “If someone comes out of a liquor store with a weapon and fifty dollars in cash,” he said, “I don’t care if a drone kills him or a policeman kills him.”

“It’s different,” Paul continued, “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.” But again, he added, “if there’s killer on the loose in a neighborhood, I’m not against drones being used.”

Paul’s comments in light of the Boston suspect’s arrest are a far cry from his staunchly anti-drone stance just last month. At the very beginning of his filibuster, Paul delivered the words below, which appear to directly contradict his statements from last night.


“I will speak as long as it takes, until the alarm is sounded from coast to coast that our Constitution is important, that your rights to trial by jury are precious, that no American should be killed by a drone on American soil without first being charged with a crime, without first being found to be guilty by a court.”

The purpose of the filibuster was to put pressure on Attorney General Eric Holder and the CIA’s John Brennan to renounce the idea of using drones to kill American citizens. During the Boston investigation last week, the Obama administration along with the FBI made a very deliberate choice to capture the younger suspect alive. Not only because that is the lawful thing to do with a suspect who, however dangerous, is not resisting arrest, but also because preserving the ability to question him will give the country to best chance at finding answers as to why he and his brother committed the attack.

Up until the interview last night, Paul had been remarkably silent about the Tsarnaev case, making no attempts to stand up for the rights of this American citizen, no matter how heinous his crimes were. The only public move he did make was to petition Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid to delay the immigration debate until after the Boston hearings. “The facts emerging in the Boston Marathon bombing have exposed a weakness in our current system,” Paul wrote. “If we don’t use this debate as an opportunity to fix flaws in our current system, flaws made even more evident last week, then we will not be doing our jobs.”

In the same interview with Cavuto last night, Paul did stand against his frequent Senate opposition, Republican Senators Lindsey Graham and John McCain to say he agreed with the administration’s decision not to try Tsarnaev as an enemy combatant. But by indicating he would have made the call to kill the suspect with drone if he’d had the chance, Paul seems to have betrayed the principles of his filibuster.

Sola_Fide
04-23-2013, 12:36 PM
Ugh...

tsai3904
04-23-2013, 12:48 PM
Rand's said repeatedly that he is not against the use of drones to repel an imminent threat, like 9/11. He does have a problem though with the way the administration defines "imminent threat".

The comment Rand made about the liquor store robber with a gun is definitely out of character and I'm guessing he either misspoke or would like to clarify his comments.

Rocco
04-23-2013, 12:58 PM
The liquor store comment is in clear reference to the terrorist walking out of the convenience store after having just robbed it. This is a media hit piece to try and drive a wedge between the liberty movement and Rand.

July
04-23-2013, 01:02 PM
I could be wrong because this is from memory, but I thought Rand used this same (or a very similar) example during the filibuster. I think it was in context of a guy robbing a store and waving a gun and about to shoot, as an example of an immediate attack/threat. He gave other examples like a guy with a bomb inside a building, or shooting down a plane about to crash into to a building (like on 9/11). I've never heard him say drones should be banned, but that the same Consitutional rules should apply to their use ....Just because drones have new technology doesn't mean the bill of rights and due process goes out the window.

juvanya
04-23-2013, 01:15 PM
Thanks guys.

Heres yet another article: http://www.theatlanticwire.com/politics/2013/04/rand-paul-believes-amazingly-broad-police-powers-libertarian/64496/

But remember, he said that he is NOT a libertarian. ;)

Matt Collins
04-23-2013, 01:21 PM
From Jack's page:



Folks, the same guy who filibustered for 13 hours to say the government does not have the right to drone American citizens on American soil did not just say the opposite. He might have misspoke. I do all the time. Please give the one person who stood up for this the benefit of the doubt, and not a media eager to attack him any chance they get.

Rocco
04-23-2013, 01:37 PM
For a bunch of people who pride themselves on not paying attention to mainstream media, some libertarians sure are quick to jump on a "gotcha" story the media puts out about a position Rand took which was not out of line with anything he has said in the past. If somebody is in the process of committing a violent crime, governments have the right to use deadly force to stop that crime. Whether a drone is doing that or an officer does not matter.

The drone debate cannot devolve into a lockstep position against a useful piece of technology, it MUST center around using that technology in a way that doesn't violate the constitution. Anything less is the libertarian equivalent of the "assault rifle" hysteria.

devil21
04-23-2013, 02:18 PM
It is strange wording and definitely needs clarification asap.

I hope Rand doesn't get into the habit of talking just to talk. That's where stuff like this liquor store comment comes from. It wasn't necessary to add to the interview and just creates opportunities for gotcha pieces by the media. Stick to the message!

sailingaway
04-23-2013, 05:15 PM
I'm assuming we have this actual video somewhere? I'll watch it for myself.

July
04-23-2013, 05:17 PM
I'm assuming we have this actual video somewhere? I'll watch it for myself.

It's from this one: http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?412189-Video-Rand-Paul-on-Cavuto-discussing-Boston-bomber-capture-4-22-13

ClydeCoulter
04-23-2013, 05:20 PM
The liquor store comment is in clear reference to the terrorist walking out of the convenience store after having just robbed it. This is a media hit piece to try and drive a wedge between the liberty movement and Rand.

What?

Sola_Fide
04-23-2013, 07:08 PM
I could be wrong because this is from memory, but I thought Rand used this same (or a very similar) example during the filibuster. I think it was in context of a guy robbing a store and waving a gun and about to shoot, as an example of an immediate attack/threat.

Even if Rand did use that example, that is not enough. Drones should never be used to kill an American (or anyone else) without trial. One of the stupid reasons we went to Iraq was because Sadaam was executing people without trial. And now we're doing it and the liberty movement is fine with it? No thanks.

Ron said:


The US government justified its attack on Saddam Hussein in Iraq and against Gaddafi in Libya, and elsewhere, with claims that these despots were killing their own citizens without trial or due process. It is true that extra-juridical killing is the opposite of justice in a free society.

Brian4Liberty
04-23-2013, 07:15 PM
Would Police robots dropping flash-bang grenades on the guy (Dzhokhar) in the boat be the equivalent of a "drone", or is that a robo-cop?

Rocco
04-23-2013, 07:43 PM
When the brothers walked out of the convenience store they had just robbed and killed the MIT cop, Rand is saying it would have been appropriate to use a drone in that instance as they were at large and threatening people with violence.


What?

ClydeCoulter
04-23-2013, 08:01 PM
When the brothers walked out of the convenience store they had just robbed and killed the MIT cop, Rand is saying it would have been appropriate to use a drone in that instance as they were at large and threatening people with violence.

They saw them do it? They were guilty beyond a shadow of a doubt? They did NOT rob the store, for sure.

edit: And your example was "terrorist walking out of the convenience store after having just robbed it." Since it was in the context of what Rand said, I saw it as, robbers are terrorists.

July
04-23-2013, 08:02 PM
Even if Rand did use that example, that is not enough. Drones should never be used to kill an American (or anyone else) without trial. One of the stupid reasons we went to Iraq was because Sadaam was executing people without trial. And now we're doing it and the liberty movement is fine with it? No thanks.


Yeah, but the context was in explaining the difference between self defense scenarios against an immediate lethal attack, versus preemptively killing people just because they might do something someday, or just because they are suspicious, or related to somebody suspicious. Remember the white house is now asserting that imminent no longer necessarily means immediate. Rand spent a lot of time during his filibuster opposing that whole concept.

TheGrinch
04-23-2013, 08:08 PM
They saw them do it? They were guilty beyond a shadow of a doubt? They did NOT rob the store, for sure.

edit: And your example was "terrorist walking out of the convenience store after having just robbed it."

Its a hypothetical. Surely rand doesn't think they should be able to authorize a drone strike in a situation where the law doesn't allow deadly force (i.e., undeniable imminent direct threat to lives)

ClydeCoulter
04-23-2013, 08:09 PM
Its a hypothetical. Surely rand doesn't think they should be able to authorize a drone strike in a situation where the law doesn't allow deadly force (i.e., undeniable imminent direct threat to lives)

I'm wasn't referring to Rand, but to Rocco's use of the word terrorist referring to a robber.

edit: I pretty much stay out of the Rand debate, just watching for now (I might way something once in a while, but....mostly just watching)

pacelli
04-23-2013, 08:10 PM
FYI, if it flies, it dies :)

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?404196-How-to-Kill-UAV-s

Sola_Fide
04-23-2013, 08:12 PM
When the brothers walked out of the convenience store they had just robbed and killed the MIT cop, Rand is saying it would have been appropriate to use a drone in that instance as they were at large and threatening people with violence.

Rand is wrong.

dskalkowski
04-23-2013, 08:14 PM
From a bunch of people who kept denouncing the media's portrayal of Ron Paul during the election, a lot of you sure are falling for the media's tricks..

klamath
04-23-2013, 08:19 PM
Imminent threat is exactly what Rand meant. I stand with Rand. If somebody is driving down a street randomly shooting people and the cops are chasing them yes I believe it is an imminent threat and they need to to be taken out by what ever means necessary.
Rands wording was poor but anybody that really is a Rand supporter knows what he means.

klamath
04-23-2013, 08:20 PM
Rand is wrong.
sola fide is wrong

Rudeman
04-23-2013, 08:25 PM
I really didn't think this would become a big issue, pretty obvious Rand has the same position he had during the filibuster. It seems that some are looking for reasons to not support Rand or to bring him down.

dskalkowski
04-23-2013, 08:26 PM
Imminent threat is exactly what Rand meant. I stand with Rand. If somebody is driving down a street randomly shooting people and the cops are chasing them yes I believe it is an imminent threat and they need to to be taken out by what ever means necessary.
Rands wording was poor but anybody that really is a Rand supporter knows what he means.

You're exactly correct. People on this forum are taking his statement out of context, thinking he compromised on his principles. All of the Rand-haters on here would end up getting pissed if Rand's favorite lunch turned out to be bologna instead of salami. It's just ridiculous, everyone here knows (especially now with that statement) that he misspoke and didn't clarify what he meant. I'm getting a bit sick of seeing some of the stupidity on this forum.

rocket
04-23-2013, 08:35 PM
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."

BSU kid
04-23-2013, 08:42 PM
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."

Eww...all I can say is eww. Sounds like Marco Rubio.

Rudeman
04-23-2013, 08:44 PM
Eww...all I can say is eww. Sounds like Marco Rubio.


Marco Rubio sounds nothing like that. It sounds like you guys want to dislike Rand.

klamath
04-23-2013, 08:47 PM
Marco Rubio sounds nothing like that. It sounds like you guys want to dislike Rand.
You think...

tennman
04-24-2013, 07:41 AM
I agree. What Rand said wasn't a big deal and is the media trying to attack his chances in 2016. If someone is shooting at you and your house and you can't get to your guns or are out of bullets, you expect the police to take him out, right? That's what Rand was talking about. He was saying that should be the only use of Drones. He stated AGAIN that he's completely against them for spying on us or taking out people just because they're political enemies. But hey, if there's a serial killer taking out people while walking down the street, a Drone might could be used to take him out. It's like self defense for crying out loud! You'd do the same thing with your own gun if that were the case and would expect a police officer to do it.

I swear, some of you apparently just love losing and want to chop the head off of anyone in our movement who has a chance. I swear, I've never seen someone's motives questioned 24-7 like this.

I agree with the statements below.


Imminent threat is exactly what Rand meant. I stand with Rand. If somebody is driving down a street randomly shooting people and the cops are chasing them yes I believe it is an imminent threat and they need to to be taken out by what ever means necessary.
Rands wording was poor but anybody that really is a Rand supporter knows what he means.


It is strange wording and definitely needs clarification asap.

I hope Rand doesn't get into the habit of talking just to talk. That's where stuff like this liquor store comment comes from. It wasn't necessary to add to the interview and just creates opportunities for gotcha pieces by the media. Stick to the message!


When the brothers walked out of the convenience store they had just robbed and killed the MIT cop, Rand is saying it would have been appropriate to use a drone in that instance as they were at large and threatening people with violence.

hillertexas
04-24-2013, 07:46 AM
Definitely no media manipulation going on...

Ron Paul fans furious over Rand Paul's drone flip-flop (http://blog.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2013/04/23/ron_paul_fans_furious_over_rand_pauls_drone_flip_f lop) - By John Hudson (April 23, 2013)
Ron Paul Supporters Are Fuming Mad at Rand Paul (over Romney Endorsement) (http://www.theatlanticwire.com/politics/2012/06/ron-paul-supporters-are-fuming-mad-rand-paul/53336/) - By John Hudson (May 12, 2012)

Well now... ain't that a coinkydink... But wait! there's more...


Ron Paul Supporters Are Really Pissed That Rand Paul Endorsed Mitt Romney (http://www.businessinsider.com/ron-paul-fans-angry-over-rand-paul-mitt-romney-endorsement-2012-6) - BusinessInsider
Ron Paul supporters denounce Rand Paul for Hagel vote (http://dailycaller.com/2013/02/14/ron-paul-supporters-denounce-rand-paul-for-hagel-vote/) - DailyCaller
Breaking: Hagel filibustered — barely; Update: Rand Paul getting hammered by Ron fans for voting no (http://hotair.com/archives/2013/02/14/breaking-hagel-filibustered-barely/) - HotAir
Rand Paul Peeves Fans of Ron Paul's Foreign Policy: "Any Attack on Israel will be Treated as an Attack on the United States" (http://reason.com/blog/2013/01/25/rand-paul-peeves-fans-of-ron-pauls-forei) - Reason
Paultards Traumatized By Rand Paul’s Romney Endorsement (http://wonkette.com/474834/paultards-traumatized-by-rand-paul-s-romney-endorsement) - Wonkette
etc

#PaintDivide&ConquerByNumbers

..