Rand Paul's Flop, Flop, Flip on Drones
JimmyV
Boston's MetroWest Posts: 19,183
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.”
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.”
___________________________________________
"...I changed by not changing at all..."
"...I changed by not changing at all..."
Post edited by Unknown User on
0
Comments
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.
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
-- 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
"...I changed by not changing at all..."
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!
"...I changed by not changing at all..."
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.
"...I changed by not changing at all..."
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.
like someone said above, the only thing this guy has going for him is his last name.
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
"...I changed by not changing at all..."
Yeah but this poll was taken before he came out in favor of drones.
"...I changed by not changing at all..."
Agreed
these fools also led the gop field at one time or another...
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
Now wait a damn minute...I happen to like RuPaul
"...I changed by not changing at all..."
^^^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.
Seems my preconceptions are what should have been burned...
I AM MINE
I don't think Rand is going to get anywhere close to the nomination.
"...I changed by not changing at all..."
I sincerely hope you are right!
Seems my preconceptions are what should have been burned...
I AM MINE
http://www.politico.com/story/2013/04/r ... 90621.html
Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) accused a “left-wing blog” of manufacturing a controversy over whether he has reversed his position on domestic drone use.
“It kind of stretches credulity to think I would go 13 hours of filibuster about something that I’m changing my position on,” Paul told the Des Moines Register.
Paul told the newspaper that his position on using “force to repel force” has been consistent and any suggestion otherwise is “completely manufactured and created by some left-wing blog.”
The controversy exploded Tuesday when the Drudge Report linked to a Foreign Policy magazine post on how Paul’s fans were criticizing him for a statement he made on Neil Cavuto’s Fox Business program. Foreign Policy, owned by The Washington Post, isn’t generally considered left-leaning.
During his appearance on Cavuto, Paul said he was fine with using domestic drones to kill someone posing an “imminent threat” like the Boston Marathon bomber or even an armed liquor store robber. What Paul has said he opposes is targeted assassinations.
“I never, ever said deadly force can’t be used to repel deadly force, and I’ve had extensive conversations about that,” Paul said. “So those who’ve spread this around have not really looked through the issue significantly in order to know that my position is exactly the same. There’s no change.”
"...I changed by not changing at all..."
"...I changed by not changing at all..."