Just shows how stupid people can be. But I love the liberal media bias where they refuse to talk about how bush helped with Aids/HIV in Africa.
paul = nutcase.
rand today flip flopped on drones. total fake.
I want to make it clear that I am not arguing against the use of technology. But like other tools used to collect information in law enforcement, a warrant needs to be issued to use drones domestically. The police force should have the power to collect intelligence; however, I believe they must go through a judge and request a warrant to do so. The judicial branch must have some authority over drones, as they do with other law enforcement tools.
My bill will restate the Fourth Amendment and protect American's privacy by forcing police officials to obtain a warrant before using domestic drones.
There are some exceptions within this bill, such as the patrol of our national borders, when immediate action is needed to prevent "imminent danger to life," and when we are under a high risk of a terrorist attack. Otherwise, the government must have probable cause that led them to ask for a warrant before the use of drones is permitted.
Ah, so Bush gave AIDS to Africa.... I knew it.
Just shows how stupid people can be. But I love the liberal media bias where they refuse to talk about how bush helped with Aids/HIV in Africa.
Unfortunately that was probably his best foreign policy stance. Almost everything else was mediocre or disastrous. If one of the two special forces plans to get Bin Laden while he was in Tora Bora had gotten the green light.
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-18560_162-4494937.html
and was successful, I'd have a different view of President Bush and his foreign policy. He didn't seem to go after Bin Laden as much as his statements made in the after math of the 9/11 attacks suggested he would.
There is a Reason that Bush didn't pursue bin laden... and it's because Bin Laden died at the end of 2001.Unfortunately that was probably his best foreign policy stance. Almost everything else was mediocre or disastrous. If one of the two special forces plans to get Bin Laden while he was in Tora Bora had gotten the green light. http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-18560_162-4494937.html and was successful, I'd have a different view of President Bush and his foreign policy. He didn't seem to go after Bin Laden as much as his statements made in the after math of the 9/11 attacks suggested he would.
Article from the middle of last year.
http://www.cnn.com/2012/06/14/opinion/rand-paul-drones
He was never against all drones all the time. He used strong language (probably because of Boston) but he didn't filibuster for nothing. The use of force through drones against imminent threats (much like any other LEO) or surveillence for on going criminal investigations along with border security are fine.
PAUL: Heres the distinction, Neil. Ive never argued against any technology being used when you have an imminent threat, an active crime going on. If someone comes out of a liquor store with a weapon and 50 dollars in cash, I dont care if a drone kills him or a policeman kills him.
Rand Paul is OK with drone killing Americans for robbing a liquor store.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/vi...t_against_using_drones_to_find_criminals.html
Rand Pauls filibuster nothing but wasted hot air.
I don't know what's worse believing Paul was the Great White Hope or believing the drivel Beck is putting forth.
You're hopelessly biased and ignored the imminent threat stated in the first sentance.
He is not saying if the guy runs out of the liquor store with a weapon throws it down and gives up that it's ok to launch a missle at the criminal. He is saying that a drone can have the same reactions as any other LEO at the scene.
What he should have said was;
"Heres the distinction, Neil. Ive never argued against any technology being used when you have an imminent threat, an active crime going on. If someone comes out of a liquor store with a weapon and 50 dollars in cash and poses an imminent threat to human life, I dont care if a drone kills him or a policeman kills him."
I'm not a fan of some of his policies and certainly do not think he is the next great white hope.
keep defending the flip flopper wingnut
Yea I read many of the books on that operation and most cite lack of will from the administration, likely dealing with Iraq. I wish we had just focused on Afgahnistan instead because things might be dramatically different had we done so but hindsight is 20/20.
Link.
What short memories people have.
This confirms that Dr. Paul 2012 was the last chance this country ever had.
Wait until voters finally discover Obama and Bush are one in the same person.
Sounds like a consistent and entirely sensible position.Article from the middle of last year.
http://www.cnn.com/2012/06/14/opinion/rand-paul-drones
He was never against all drones all the time. He used strong language (probably because of Boston) but he didn't filibuster for nothing. The use of force through drones against imminent threats (much like any other LEO) or surveillence for on going criminal investigations along with border security are fine.