Rand Paul the Hypocrite!!

[Light]

http://blog.foreignpolicy.com/posts/...rone_flip_flop

Typical !!!

[Originalist]

And Luz parrots talking points instead of researching for herself. Rand is not a hypocrite. If people would bother to listen to what he said, they'd understand that. Assasinating American citizens without a trial is not the same as a SWAT team member having to take out someone in the process of committing a life threatening crime, whether that SWAT team is using an AR15, or is operating a drone remotely. Intelligent, reasoning minds can discern the difference.

[n david]

I was very encouraged with Sen. Paul's filibuster against CIA Dir Brenner when he lashed out against the use of drones. However, the statement he made on Tuesday really goes against what he laid out during the filibuster, and despite a nice effort to try and clarify his statement, it wasn't enough for me.

Here's what he said from the Senate floor during his filibuster:

"I will not sit quietly and let [the president] shred the constitution. 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."

"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 agree with that.

Now here's the flip that he did on Fox Business Network on Tuesday:

"Here's the distinction: I have never argued against any technology being used when you have 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."

"when you have an imminent threat, an act of crime going on."

Here's the first change. The Senator's speech during his filibuster focused on "enemy combatants" and terrorists. He did not speak about simple liquor store robbers. The focus was entirely on combatants, non-combatants, and terrorists who are US citizens and who should have their Fifth Amendment rights guaranteed.

Now suddenly he says a simple "act of crime" is enough to warrant drone usage.

"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."

Are you serious!?!? We've gone from protesting the killing of non-combatants and even alleged terrorists who are US citizens (because doing so would violate their Fifth Amendment rights) to fully advocating the execution of some dude robbing a liquor store for $50 in cash?

THAT'S something the Senator believes constitutes an imminent threat, which is enough to violate his Fifth Amendment rights? Robbing a liquor store for $50 in cash???

There are several issues with that statement that he did not address in his "clarifying" remarks.

1. Currently the CIA is transitioning control of the drone program to the Dept of Defense. Ever hear of the Posse Comitatus Act? The nutshell version basically says the Dept of Defense cannot use the Army, Navy, Marines or Air Force to act as law enforcement in the US. Only the National Guard and Coast Guard, which are under control of State Governors, are exempted from this.

So if the Dept of Defense is in control of the drone program, and the Senator is openly advocating the use of a drone to summarily execute a dude coming out of a liquor store with a gun and $50 in cash...he's advocating violating Posse Comitatus and establishing martial law.

That is a complete 180-degree turn from the position he took on the floor of the Senate during his filibuster.

2. He only said the guy was coming out with a weapon and $50 in cash. I assumed he meant the guy robbed the place. But just as the Senator was so concerned with a innocent citizen typing on a laptop at an internet cafe getting blown up, I'm concerned with a guy who hasn't broken the law coming out of a store with cash and a legal firearm getting blown away while not having committed a crime. There are too many instances of mistaken identity and police getting the wrong individual for me to feel comfortable with the Senator's statement.

3. What is the definition of criminal acts? Sounds like an easy answer, but it's not. The Boston bombing had a US citizen using a pressure cooker bomb. We've called that atrocity an act of terrorism. But what if he had used an assault rifle and killed 20 or 30 people and injured more? Would that still be considered an act of terrorism? I doubt it. Typically we equate bombs to terrorism. Since he's advocating lethal force for robbery, what about rape? Assault and battery? Grand theft auto?

That would make for interesting evening news report -- "Breaking news: The white Ford Bronco used by OJ Simpson to flee police has been blown up by a drone. Live with more, tonight at 10." Seems really dumb, right? No more so than his own example. "Tonight at 10, more details about the armed robber who stole $50 in cash from a liquor store and was blown up by an armed drone in Topeka, KS."

Next, what's an imminent threat and who is being threatened to justify this Fifth Amendment busting, Posse Comitatus breaking lethal force?

I think someone needs to take to the Senate floor and demand answers from Senator Paul on the statement he made. I'm only half joking here...he needs to re-clarify his clarification and explicitly state whether or not he approves of suspending Posse Comitatus and the Fifth Amendment rights of a stupid liquor store robber.

In that one statement, he not only channeled Senator McCain...he out McCain'd Senator McCain.

I do not #StandWithRand on his new drone position. Very upset. Very disappointed with his statement.

[RandyWayne]

I subscribe to a number of YouTube channels and I particularly like this one. Just a young guy who lives in Flint, MI and gives his daily opinion on world events (as well as prepping and firearms -he's for em).

[n david]

Originally Posted by RandyWayne

I subscribe to a number of YouTube channels and I particularly like this one. Just a young guy who lives in Flint, MI and gives his daily opinion on world events (as well as prepping and firearms -he's for em).

I'm not able to view this at work. Is he supportive of Senator Paul's statement or not?

[RandyWayne]

Originally Posted by n david

I'm not able to view this at work. Is he supportive of Senator Paul's statement or not?

He was a supporter during the filibuster, but not his inexplicable current statement.

[n david]

Originally Posted by Originalist

And Luz parrots talking points instead of researching for herself. Rand is not a hypocrite. If people would bother to listen to what he said, they'd understand that. Assasinating American citizens without a trial is not the same as a SWAT team member having to take out someone in the process of committing a life threatening crime, whether that SWAT team is using an AR15, or is operating a drone remotely. Intelligent, reasoning minds can discern the difference.

1. Robbing a liquor store is typically not a life-threatening crime
2. Currently all drone ops are conducted by the Dept of Defense. There are no SWAT teams with an armed drone. Which means to use an armed drone against an evil liquor store robber would require suspension of Posse Comitatus and a disregard for the robbers Fifth Amendment rights.
3. If the robber is indeed so dangerous that he requires immediate execution, it's always preferable for a police officer or SWAT member to do the killing than an armed drone operated by the military.

[n david]

Senator Paul still clarifying...updated his Facebook page an hour ago with a new statement:

During my filibuster on March 6, 2013, I argued that drone technology must be subjected to the same constitutional restrictions as traditional law enforcement.

His statement yesterday went well past this.

[Originalist]

Originally Posted by n david

1. Robbing a liquor store is typically not a life-threatening crime
2. Currently all drone ops are conducted by the Dept of Defense. There are no SWAT teams with an armed drone. Which means to use an armed drone against an evil liquor store robber would require suspension of Posse Comitatus and a disregard for the robbers Fifth Amendment rights.
3. If the robber is indeed so dangerous that he requires immediate execution, it's always preferable for a police officer or SWAT member to do the killing than an armed drone operated by the military.

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.

[Digging4Truth]

Originally Posted by n david

1. Robbing a liquor store is typically not a life-threatening crime
2. Currently all drone ops are conducted by the Dept of Defense. There are no SWAT teams with an armed drone. Which means to use an armed drone against an evil liquor store robber would require suspension of Posse Comitatus and a disregard for the robbers Fifth Amendment rights.
3. If the robber is indeed so dangerous that he requires immediate execution, it's always preferable for a police officer or SWAT member to do the killing than an armed drone operated by the military.

Indeed. And a drone only has 2 real options. Surveillance... or kill.

A drone isn't likely to be able to detain or capture. A good cop tries to capture the perpetrator so that he can be brought to a court of law and stand trial.