Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)

Rand Paul: No, I didn’t flip-flop on domestic drone use

Posted by on Apr. 23, 2013 at 11:53 PM
  • 21 Replies




10:27 PM 04/23/2013

Caroline May


Following reports that Sen. Rand Paul had changed his position on drone use, the Kentucky Republican responded with a statement Tuesday night insisting he hasn’t flip-flopped on the issue.

Earlier on Tuesday, Paul, who launched a dramatic speaking filibuster in March to oppose the potential use of domestic drones on American citizens, appeared on the Fox Business Network with Neil Cavuto and appeared to suggest that drones can reasonably be used in some domestic situations. (RELATED — Paul brings Senate to a halt: “I’m going to speak as long as I can”)

“I’ve never argued against any technology being used when you have an imminent threat, an active crime going on,” Paul told Cavuto, responding to a question about the Boston Marathon manhunt. “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. But it’s different if they want to fly over your hot tub or your yard just because they want to do surveillance on everyone, and they want to watch your activities.”

Paul attempted to clarify his remarks later in the day.

“My comments last night left the mistaken impression that my position on drones had changed,” Paul said in the Tuesday night statement. “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,” he added. “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.”

Foreign Policy magazine reported that Paul’s libertarian fan base had been distressed by his comments to Cavuto, with several of Paul’s followers posting on message boards and forums to voice their anger and frustration.

by on Apr. 23, 2013 at 11:53 PM
Add your quick reply below:
You must be a member to reply to this post.
Replies (1-10):
LIMom1105
by on Apr. 24, 2013 at 8:18 AM
1 mom liked this
Glad he clarified that. Seemed like a HUGE reversal on position (quickly) given what he said during his Filibuster.
sweet-a-kins
by Ruby Member on Apr. 24, 2013 at 9:02 AM
1 mom liked this

 

“I’ve never argued against any technology being used when you have an imminent threat, an active crime going on,” Paul told Cavuto, responding to a question about the Boston Marathon manhunt. “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. But it’s different if they want to fly over your hot tub or your yard just because they want to do surveillance on everyone, and they want to watch your activities.”

Paul attempted to clarify his remarks later in the day.

“My comments last night left the mistaken impression that my position on drones had changed,” Paul said in the Tuesday night statement. “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,” he added. “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.”

 

 

 

um, the example he gave was not a terror situation. robbing a store can now get you gunned down from the sky..judge jury executioner...

He is a fraud

JoJoBean8
by Silver Member on Apr. 24, 2013 at 7:39 PM
2 moms liked this

Hence why he clarified. 

Quoting sweet-a-kins:

 

“I’ve never argued against any technology being used when you have an imminent threat, an active crime going on,” Paul told Cavuto, responding to a question about the Boston Marathon manhunt. “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. But it’s different if they want to fly over your hot tub or your yard just because they want to do surveillance on everyone, and they want to watch your activities.”

Paul attempted to clarify his remarks later in the day.

“My comments last night left the mistaken impression that my position on drones had changed,” Paul said in the Tuesday night statement. “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,” he added. “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.”




um, the example he gave was not a terror situation. robbing a store can now get you gunned down from the sky..judge jury executioner...

He is a fraud


kailu1835
by Silver Member on Apr. 24, 2013 at 7:45 PM

 I don't see this as a flip flop.  It makes perfect sense to me.

sweet-a-kins
by Ruby Member on Apr. 24, 2013 at 8:47 PM
It makes sense to murder an American citizen that may have robbed a store as he comes out of the building by a drone ?

Quoting kailu1835:

 I don't see this as a flip flop.  It makes perfect sense to me.

Posted on CafeMom Mobile
kailu1835
by Silver Member on Apr. 24, 2013 at 8:57 PM
1 mom liked this

 His point in entirety (instead of taking out a phrase and acting like the whole meaning was contained in that tiny phrase) was that it is one thing to use drones to combat crime (as they keep saying they want to use it for) but another to use it to "combat crime" by watching law abiding citizens in their homes, which is more likely to be what occurs if this were ever to pass.  He did not say that he thought it would be perfectly fine to use drones to stop somewhat benign crimes.  That has never been his stance.  He was making the point that there is a difference between combating crime and spying on citizens.

 

Quoting sweet-a-kins:

It makes sense to murder an American citizen that may have robbed a store as he comes out of the building by a drone ?

Quoting kailu1835:

 I don't see this as a flip flop.  It makes perfect sense to me.

 

babiesbabybaby development

Hi!  My name is Jenn!

sweet-a-kins
by Ruby Member on Apr. 24, 2013 at 9:00 PM
No, he said its ok to use it to murder American American citizens

He cannot unring that bell


Quoting kailu1835:

 His point in entirety (instead of taking out a phrase and acting like the whole meaning was contained in that tiny phrase) was that it is one thing to use drones to combat crime (as they keep saying they want to use it for) but another to use it to "combat crime" by watching law abiding citizens in their homes, which is more likely to be what occurs if this were ever to pass.  He did not say that he thought it would be perfectly fine to use drones to stop somewhat benign crimes.  That has never been his stance.  He was making the point that there is a difference between combating crime and spying on citizens.


 


Quoting sweet-a-kins:

It makes sense to murder an American citizen that may have robbed a store as he comes out of the building by a drone ?


Quoting kailu1835:


 I don't see this as a flip flop.  It makes perfect sense to me.


 

Posted on CafeMom Mobile
SallyMJ
by Ruby Member on Apr. 24, 2013 at 11:20 PM

I think he accidentally some words out.   :)


Quoting LIMom1105:

Glad he clarified that. Seemed like a HUGE reversal on position (quickly) given what he said during his Filibuster.



kcangel63
by Amanda on Apr. 24, 2013 at 11:22 PM
1 mom liked this
Here's my issue. In the filibuster he said...


**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.**

Explain away, but that is a total reversal from what was said above.

SallyMJ
by Ruby Member on Apr. 24, 2013 at 11:23 PM

Who are criminals and it is a situation of imminent threat to police or ordinary American citizens.


Quoting sweet-a-kins:

No, he said its ok to use it to murder American American citizens

He cannot unring that bell


Quoting kailu1835:

 His point in entirety (instead of taking out a phrase and acting like the whole meaning was contained in that tiny phrase) was that it is one thing to use drones to combat crime (as they keep saying they want to use it for) but another to use it to "combat crime" by watching law abiding citizens in their homes, which is more likely to be what occurs if this were ever to pass.  He did not say that he thought it would be perfectly fine to use drones to stop somewhat benign crimes.  That has never been his stance.  He was making the point that there is a difference between combating crime and spying on citizens.




Quoting sweet-a-kins:

It makes sense to murder an American citizen that may have robbed a store as he comes out of the building by a drone ?


Quoting kailu1835:


 I don't see this as a flip flop.  It makes perfect sense to me.


 



Add your quick reply below:
You must be a member to reply to this post.
Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)