Rand Paul's Flop, Flop, Flip on Drones

JimmyV

More shocking than finding out there was gambling going on in Rick's Cafe. This man will say and do anything to get elected. A drone should never be used on an American citizen on American soil...unless of course you have just stolen $50 from a liquor store. Then the hellfire can rain down on you.

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/04/23/r ... 0-in-cash/

Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY), who filibustered for 13 hours in March 2013 against the idea of using military drone technology against U.S. citizens, said he supported them being used against criminal suspects in an interview with Fox Business Channel on Monday.

“I have never argued against any technology being used against having an imminent threat, [or] an act of crime going on,” Paul said, referring to Boston Marathon bombing suspect Dzhokhar Tsarnaev. “If someone comes out of a liquor store with a weapon and 50 dollars in cash I don’t care if a drone kills him or a policeman kills him.”

According to Mediaite, host Neil Cavuto said he thought of Paul when watching thermal imagery of authorities surrounding Tsarnaev, who was found hiding on a boat stored in the backyard of a Watertown, Massachusetts home.

“Apparently with this thermal imaging, you can see a person behind a wall, or in this case, a cover,” Cavuto said. “And I’m thinking, ‘What else can these guys see? I didn’t even know they had that ability with a helicopter, to do that.”

Paul said there was a different between authorities searching for someone posing an “imminent threat” and conducting surveillance on a person’s residence. But he made no such distinction during his filibuster.

“I will speak as long as it takes, until the alarm is sounded from coast to coast that our Constitution is important,” Paul said on March 6. “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.”

mikepegg44

JimmyV wrote:

More shocking than finding out there was gambling going on in Rick's Cafe. This man will say and do anything to get elected. A drone should never be used on an American citizen on American soil...unless of course you have just stolen $50 from a liquor store. Then the hellfire can rain down on you.

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/04/23/r ... 0-in-cash/

Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY), who filibustered for 13 hours in March 2013 against the idea of using military drone technology against U.S. citizens, said he supported them being used against criminal suspects in an interview with Fox Business Channel on Monday.

“I have never argued against any technology being used against having an imminent threat, [or] an act of crime going on,” Paul said, referring to Boston Marathon bombing suspect Dzhokhar Tsarnaev. “If someone comes out of a liquor store with a weapon and 50 dollars in cash I don’t care if a drone kills him or a policeman kills him.”

According to Mediaite, host Neil Cavuto said he thought of Paul when watching thermal imagery of authorities surrounding Tsarnaev, who was found hiding on a boat stored in the backyard of a Watertown, Massachusetts home.

“Apparently with this thermal imaging, you can see a person behind a wall, or in this case, a cover,” Cavuto said. “And I’m thinking, ‘What else can these guys see? I didn’t even know they had that ability with a helicopter, to do that.”

Paul said there was a different between authorities searching for someone posing an “imminent threat” and conducting surveillance on a person’s residence. But he made no such distinction during his filibuster.

“I will speak as long as it takes, until the alarm is sounded from coast to coast that our Constitution is important,” Paul said on March 6. “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.”

just read this, not surprised. It is exactly why I have no faith in Rand Paul and will not work to get him elected like I did his father.

inmytree

Methinks Rand Paul is really RuPaul...

Jason P

If he didn't share the same last name, no way in hell the Libertarian movement would ever claim to be associated with him.

JimmyV

“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.”

-- Rand Paul, 3/6/2013


“If someone comes out of a liquor store with a weapon and 50 dollars in cash I don’t care if a drone kills him or a policeman kills him.”

-- Rand Paul, 4/23/2013

peacefrompaul

God, I can't fucking stand him

unsung

I wouldn't say he flip-flopped but I'd agree he is nowhere close to being like his father. He is more of a typical electable politician, but of all the rumored candidates he is far the most libertarian.


Official Statement:


"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 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."

-Rand Paul

JimmyV

unsung wrote:

I wouldn't say he flip-flopped but I'd agree he is nowhere close to being like his father. He is more of a typical electable politician, but of all the rumored candidates he is far the most libertarian.


Official Statement:


"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 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."

-Rand Paul

How does the guy with $50 and a weapon become classified as an ongoing, imminent threat? Happens everyday all over America.

I don't want drones outside my liquor store Senator!

unsung

Honestly I can't speak about that because I didn't read or hear the comment yet. Some are saying he misspoke. I'm not making an excuse. Actions speak louder than words so for now I'm going to cut the guy a break. Nobody is perfect.

JimmyV

unsung wrote:

Honestly I can't speak about that because I didn't read or hear the comment yet. Some are saying he misspoke. I'm not making an excuse. Actions speak louder than words so for now I'm going to cut the guy a break. Nobody is perfect.

Oh, I'm sure he misspoke. But when? Last night or on the floor of the Senate? Sometimes the only time a politician is honest is when he misspeaks and says what he really thinks.

unsung

His voting record has been in defense of civil rights, in defense of liberty. When he votes to allow drones to assassinate a US citizen then I'll get on his case. I'm thinking his line of reasoning was if there were a guy mowing people down on the streets and nobody could stop him then he wouldn't care what it took to stop the guy from killing more people.

This liquor store comment seems to be a bit overblown and I believe there is some overreacting going on. And yes he is losing support amongst libertarians, but he is still the best option.

gimmesometruth27

i can respect ron paul. but i can never respect his idiot son.

like someone said above, the only thing this guy has going for him is his last name.

unsung

http://blogs.courier-journal.com/politi ... gop-field/

JimmyV

This kind of thing speaks to his character. He will say anything to get elected. Was it a slip of the tongue? Probably, but still one that completely undid a 14 hour grandstanding filibuster he engaged in less than two months earlier.

Jason P

unsung wrote:

His voting record has been in defense of civil rights, in defense of liberty. When he votes to allow drones to assassinate a US citizen then I'll get on his case. I'm thinking his line of reasoning was if there were a guy mowing people down on the streets and nobody could stop him then he wouldn't care what it took to stop the guy from killing more people.

This liquor store comment seems to be a bit overblown and I believe there is some overreacting going on. And yes he is losing support amongst libertarians, but he is still the best option.

I think he is better then most (although the bar is pretty low overall). But it seems like the dark side of the force is trying to pull him over.

JimmyV

unsung wrote:

http://blogs.courier-journal.com/politics/2013/04/24/new-hampshire-poll-out-tomorrow-will-show-sen-rand-paul-leading-gop-field/

Yeah but this poll was taken before he came out in favor of drones.

peacefrompaul

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

i can respect ron paul. but i can never respect his idiot son.

like someone said above, the only thing this guy has going for him is his last name.

Agreed

gimmesometruth27

JimmyV wrote:

unsung wrote:

http://blogs.courier-journal.com/politics/2013/04/24/new-hampshire-poll-out-tomorrow-will-show-sen-rand-paul-leading-gop-field/

Yeah but this poll was taken before he came out in favor of drones.

i don't think that that is saying much....

these fools also led the gop field at one time or another...

Bentleyspop

inmytree wrote:

Methinks Rand Paul is really RuPaul...

Now wait a damn minute...I happen to like RuPaul

JimmyV

Also, this was a friendly interviewer in Neil Cavuto. It's not like poor Rand was tricked by big bad MSNBC or some other demon of the Liberal media. This was Fox Business Channel.

riotgrl

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

i can respect ron paul. but i can never respect his idiot son.

like someone said above, the only thing this guy has going for him is his last name.

^^^This. Rand Paul is a fool that has very little political experience and is simply trading in on his father's name. From what I have seen of him, he says things that are politically expedient and don't seem to be part of the deeper fabric of libertarian ideals. It will be a sad day if he runs and gets elected as president but I can see this happening in 2016 as backlash against Obama.