Rand Paul the Hypocrite!!

[n david]

Originally Posted by Originalist

He made a reference to "SWAT" type situations. maybe the Liquor store analogy was not the best. But a ratioanlly thinking person can see what he meant. There is no flip flop here. Even if there are currently no armed SWAT drones, there will be eventually, and he is simply heading off that issue. I'm glad he did. people are making a big deal out of nothing here. He's obviously not endorsing the military or any other federal agency involving themselves in local law enforcment matters.

Your use of "rational thinking" is out of place. To think rationally means to make a choice using a set of constraints; thinking reasonably. There is no rational basis for using a drone to execute a common thug. A rational person is the person like myself and others, questioning his statement. You and others are the ones giving talking points, while others like myself are actually stating specific problems with his statement.

If you compare his filibuster speech to this statement, the statement is diametrically opposed to his speech on the Senate floor. In fact, his statement yesterday surpasses the reason for his filibuster. If you remember, his reason for the filibuster was because the President and DOJ would not commit to answering whether or not they would use drones to kill US citizens who are enemy combatants on US soil.

Enemy combatants are NOT simple liquor store robbers. They're not just criminal thugs. Enemy combatants are defined in relation to terrorism, not theft.

His statement is not only a flip-flop, but it goes well beyond what the President and AG Holder were noncommittal about.

[n david]

WT poll asks readers if they support Senator Paul's modified position on domestic drones. 60% said no, 29% yes, 9% undecided and 2% other.

Link

[Originalist]

Originally Posted by n david

WT poll asks readers if they support Senator Paul's modified position on domestic drones. 60% said no, 29% yes, 9% undecided and 2% other.

Link

All based on a false perception that he actually flip-flopped.

[Originalist]

Originally Posted by n david

Your use of "rational thinking" is out of place. To think rationally means to make a choice using a set of constraints; thinking reasonably. There is no rational basis for using a drone to execute a common thug. A rational person is the person like myself and others, questioning his statement. You and others are the ones giving talking points, while others like myself are actually stating specific problems with his statement.

If you compare his filibuster speech to this statement, the statement is diametrically opposed to his speech on the Senate floor. In fact, his statement yesterday surpasses the reason for his filibuster. If you remember, his reason for the filibuster was because the President and DOJ would not commit to answering whether or not they would use drones to kill US citizens who are enemy combatants on US soil.

Enemy combatants are NOT simple liquor store robbers. They're not just criminal thugs. Enemy combatants are defined in relation to terrorism, not theft.

His statement is not only a flip-flop, but it goes well beyond what the President and AG Holder were noncommittal about.

Again, there are times when it is impossible to take someone into custody. I remember a few years ago a couple of bank robbers refused to surrender. They had on bullet proof vests and casually walked through a neighborhood shooting at cops with automatic weapons. I believe it was a police sniper in a helicopter that took them out. What difference would it have made if a cop operating a drone from a remote location had done the job instead? This is the kind of scenario Paul was referring to. I think he was very clear.

[n david]

Originally Posted by Originalist

Again, there are times when it is impossible to take someone into custody. I remember a few years ago a couple of bank robbers refused to surrender. They had on bullet proof vests and casually walked through a neighborhood shooting at cops with automatic weapons. I believe it was a police sniper in a helicopter that took them out. What difference would it have made if a cop operating a drone from a remote location had done the job instead? This is the kind of scenario Paul was referring to. I think he was very clear.

If you're OK with drones, that's your choice. I'm not ok with it

Regardless, Paul's speech from the floor was completely different than his statement yesterday. You can try to ignore the fact and talk about hypotheticals, but he changed his talking point from enemy combatants and terrorists to common criminals.

That's all I'm saying. He needs to clarify some things, because he opened a can of worms with that statement.

[Jay]

I see the headline: Thug Assassinated by Drone After $50 Robbery, 70 Bystanders Slain, President Rand Paul to be Impeached

[Originalist]

Originally Posted by Jay

I see the headline: Thug Assassinated by Drone After $50 Robbery, 70 Bystanders Slain, President Rand Paul to be Impeached

I take it you are joking.

[n david]

Originally Posted by Jay

I see the headline: Thug Assassinated by Drone After $50 Robbery, 70 Bystanders Slain, President Rand Paul to be Impeached

Doubt he'd be impeached, but there would certainly be more than just the one criminal dead. Great headline.

[OneEyedFatMan]

When it comes to Military stuff I am old school... send in the troops, slaughter the bad guys. Drones should be limiteted to intelligence gathering... nothing more.

If some **** needs killing, a person should do that with precision and intent.. not a robot.

[Originalist]

Originally Posted by n david

Doubt he'd be impeached, but there would certainly be more than just the one criminal dead. Great headline.

I'm sorry, but that simply is not true any more than there would be more than one criminal dead if a cop from a chopper took out a bad guy with a rifle. The kind of drone strikes Paul referred to cops using would not involve hellfire missiles that are used in Afghanistan that do kill innocent civilians. The drone would house the rifle that-the police sniper would use from a remote location, nothing more. You guys are simply blowing this out of proportion.

Granted, I'm not advocating drone use by police. I'm simply pointing out the silliness and hysteria from some over Paul's comment.