Rand Paul "evolves" on killing Americans with drones on American soil

[sm625]

Hey if a guy who owns a liquor store happens to own a hypothetical mini-drone, who is to say he cannot use it to protect his property? This is something the supreme court is going to have to rule on in the near future, as more upper-middle class folks gain access to drone type technology.

 

[xBiffx]

Hey if a guy who owns a liquor store happens to own a hypothetical mini-drone, who is to say he cannot use it to protect his property? This is something the supreme court is going to have to rule on in the near future, as more upper-middle class folks gain access to drone type technology.

Not if we ban assault drones first.

 

[bshole]

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 know its fine to drop bombs on terrorists in other countries because we don't care about collateral damage but what happens here in America when the blast takes out the bad guy and 30 innnocent American bystanders? Can the government write off the American bystanders killed as collateral damage (like they do for bystanders overseas)?

 

[nextJin]

you just keep ignoring what he said during the filibusterer. Whatever you have to do to continue worshiping at the Paul alter.

I did know that when he said no American should be killed without being convicted, he put a big * next to it, full of fine print.

And.... Nothing......

Yet again

+2 to me

 

[bshole]

Just for the record, I am against drone strikes on American soil for any reason. That's what we have 3rd world nations like Iraq and Afghanistan for.

 

[Fern]

I never saw a problem with Holder's answer to the hypothetical question that got Rand Paul all riled up.

I don't see any flip-flop here by Paul either. I don't think any sane person argues it is unconstitutional for the police to use deadly force when trying to stop someone in the commission of a felony (e.g., robbing a bank).

Fern

 

[Nintendesert]

I say instead of having this bullshit debate how about we just not fly our weapons of war over American fucking skies!

 

[michal1980]

And.... Nothing......

Yet again

+2 to me

your just to stupid to get it. To far up pauls ass.


Theres no fucking reason to drone strike an AMERICAN on us soil.

its not the same as a cop shooting the crook.

When cops are around, there lives have to be in danger before they fire. No object is threatened to the point of needed to kill a person.

Lets just through out due process whenever we feel like it.

Whats the point of having laws if you aren't going to follow the when you feel like it?

 

[michal1980]

I never saw a problem with Holder's answer to the hypothetical question that got Rand Paul all riled up.

I don't see any flip-flop here by Paul either. I don't think any sane person argues it is unconstitutional for the police to use deadly force when trying to stop someone in the commission of a felony (e.g., robbing a bank).

Fern

Cops 99% of the time don't just go and shot bad guys.

Is that what the new standard would be? Shoot first, ask questions later?

 

[nextJin]

Wow cmon man really?

What if there are no cops around the criminal poses an immediate threat to a civilian and the only thing stopping him is a drone with some type of weapon? (probably not a nuclear bomb)

That's the point he is/was making.

I can't believe I had to spell that out for you.

 

[nextJin]

Cops 99% of the time don't just go and shot bad guys.

Is that what the new standard would be? Shoot first, ask questions later?

How many damn times do I have to keep correcting you with his immediate threat statement?

Look up the definition of context, then review his statements on drones for the past 2 yrs.

 

[bshole]

What if there are no cops around the criminal poses an immediate threat to a civilian and the only thing stopping him is a drone with some type of weapon? (probably not a nuclear bomb)

We drop a bomb that kills the perp, the civilian, and 10 bystanders? Sounds like a plan.... for IRAQ!!

What Ron Paul said:

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.

I disagree with him. I am worried about the camel getting his nose into the tent, if you know what I mean.

For the first time, a civilian affected by a US drone strike in Yemen has testified before members of Congress. Farea al-Muslimi, an American-educated Yemeni journalist whose home village of Wessab had been attacked by a US drone just six days prior, went before the Senate's Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights and Human Rights yesterday, during a special hearing on the effects of America's secret drone wars on civilian populations and the US rule of law. But despite previous commitments, representatives of the Obama administration were notably absent.

"The drone strike and its impact tore my heart, much as the tragic bombings in Boston last week tore your hearts and also mine," said Muslimi to the bipartisan panel of US Senators, which included committee chair Dick Durbin (D-IL), Ted Cruz (R-TX), and Al Franken (D-MN). The strike killed six people including its intended target, Hamid Radman al Manea, a local man suspected to have ties with Al-Qaeda in the Arabian Penninsula (AQAP). Muslimi was not an eyewitness to the strike, but he claims that the man was well-known around his home town and could have easily been arrested by local authorities — seemingly at odds with the US government's legal position that drone strikes are only justified when capture is "unfeasible."

"WHAT THE VIOLENT MILITANTS PREVIOUSLY FAILED TO ACHIEVE, ONE DRONE STRIKE ACHIEVED IN AN INSTANT."

"I was torn between the great country that I know and love and the drone above my head that could not differentiate between me and some AQAP militant," Muslimi continued, recalling his time going to school in America. "That feeling, multiplied by the highest number mathematicians have, gripped me when my village was droned just days ago. It is the worst feeling I have ever had."

So 5 innocents killed to get one bad guy, I really don't think that kind of collateral damage occurs in America without significant blowback.

http://www.theverge.com/2013/4/24/4259074/yemeni-journalist-testifies-on-us-drone-strike-terrorism

 

[Dari]

Oh you are really parsing words. Congrats you are awesome at doing that! Most would assume if the police are shooting at a robber, it would be due to that gun being out.

So a robber runs out of a store with a gun in a situation where police is shooting at them. Is that the same as somebody sitting in a house, in their car, anywhere not engaged actively in violent crime?

How do you know he's a robber? Because the cops say so? Could be a misunderstanding.

 

[michal1980]

Wow cmon man really?

What if there are no cops around the criminal poses an immediate threat to a civilian and the only thing stopping him is a drone with some type of weapon? (probably not a nuclear bomb)

That's the point he is/was making.

I can't believe I had to spell that out for you.

so now we just have drones flying around spying on people, and just killing them when they 'think' its a threat?

Drones - The new Judge Dredd

 

[nextJin]

We drop a bomb that kills the perp, the civilian, and 10 bystanders? Sounds like a plan.... for IRAQ!!

What Ron Paul said:

I disagree with him. I am worried about the camel getting his nose into the tent, if you know what I mean.



So 5 innocents killed to get one bad guy, I really don't think that kind of collateral damage occurs in America without significant blowback.

http://www.theverge.com/2013/4/24/4259074/yemeni-journalist-testifies-on-us-drone-strike-terrorism

Rand Paul not Ron but sure.

When I said probably not a nuclear bomb I was sarcastically saying we won't use ordnance. Dropping a bomb to kill a robber for 50 bucks sounds a bit absurd even if he poses a immediate threat.

 

[nextJin]

so now we just have drones flying around spying on people, and just killing them when they 'think' its a threat?

Drones - The new Judge Dredd

Context context context.

Active investigation going on across the city, cops are 7 mins out drone can be there in 5 mins suspect is killing hundreds of people with his AR15 and thousand round magazines that never jam.

 

[bshole]

NextJin,

I find your "liberty or death" avatar a tab bit ironic given the support you appear to have for drone warfare on American soil. You are trading essential freedom for the illusion of safety.

We managed to survive all these years without drone strikes on American soil. Why the sudden need to use the most cutting age military technology in the world against our own citizens right here on our own soil?

The VAST majority of people killed in drone strikes are innocent collateral damage.

Pakistan's government publicly condemns these attacks, but has secretly shared intelligence with the United States[7] and also allegedly allowed the drones to operate from Shamsi Airfield in Pakistan until 21 April 2011, when 150 Americans left the base.[8] According to secret diplomatic cables leaked by Wikileaks, Pakistan's Army Chief Ashfaq Parvez Kayani not only tacitly agreed to the drone flights, but in 2008 requested Americans to increase them.[9] However, Pakistan's Interior Minister Rehman Malik said, "drone missiles cause collateral damage. A few militants are killed, but the majority of victims are innocent citizens."[10] The strikes are often linked to anti-American sentiment in Pakistan and the growing questionability of the scope and extent of CIA activities in Pakistan.
Reports of the number of militants versus civilian casualties differ.

[11] According to the Pakistani authorities, 60 cross-border predator strikes in the period from January 2006 to April 2009 killed 14 wanted al-Qaeda leaders and 687 Pakistani civilians.[12][13] In a 2009 opinion article, Daniel L. Byman of the Brookings Institution wrote that drone strikes may have killed "10 or so civilians" for every "mid- and high-ranking [al Qaeda and Taliban] leader."[14]

 

[xBiffx]

so now we just have drones flying around spying on people, and just killing them when they 'think' its a threat?

Hey dipshit, you do realize there is a law enforcement person sitting behind the controls of that drone don't you?

How is that any different than a police officer, in person, doing the same thing when they see a threat?

We already have Judge Dredd when it comes to use of lethal force by police to protect the public.

Is that what the new standard would be? Shoot first, ask questions later?

No and why would a drone make it so?

 

[bshole]

How is that any different than a police officer, in person, doing the same thing when they see a threat?

Generally the police officer doesn't throw a BOMB at the perp. Are you comfortable with the demonstrated AND DOCUMENTED 10-to-1 (innocent civilian to perp) kill ratio of this weapon?

 

[Darwin333]

Yes, any politician can change their mind on an issue. There are legitimate reasons for changing ones mind but if you get on your high horse on a particular issue, demand memos from the White House supporting your issue, I would think you would remain consistant.

Enter the newest conservative star, Rand Paul.

Remember this from his epic filibuster a few months ago...


It has "evolved" to this a few days ago...


Damn dude, if you are going to run for President in 2016 get your lies together!

http://blog.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2013/04/23/ron_paul_fans_furious_over_rand_pauls_drone_flip_flop

I fail to see how that is inconsistent. In one instance he was talking about people being outright denied their rights to due process by being executed while not an imminent threat.

In the other instance he was talking about an imminent threat...

 

[BoberFett]

Hey dipshit, you do realize there is a law enforcement person sitting behind the controls of that drone don't you?

How is that any different than a police officer, in person, doing the same thing when they see a threat?

We already have Judge Dredd when it comes to use of lethal force by police to protect the public.



No and why would a drone make it so?

Does the drone pilot have the option of telling the perp to drop their weapon and wait for an arresting officer, like an officer on the scene of a crime in progress would do?

 

[nextJin]

NextJin,

I find your "liberty or death" avatar a tab bit ironic given the support you appear to have for drone warfare on American soil. You are trading essential freedom for the illusion of safety.

We managed to survive all these years without drone strikes on American soil. Why the sudden need to use the most cutting age military technology in the world against our own citizens right here on our own soil?

The VAST majority of people killed in drone strikes are innocent collateral damage.

It's all theoretical. I disagree with having drones over Greensboro, NC. Yet I can see the point in having them in border states if that is what states want to do (along with the Federal Government) to combat illegal border crossing.

What Paul is saying is that if a drone is in the air and could be used as an asset to assist in an extreme situation where innocent life is in jeopardy then use all possible avenues to prevent innocent death.

He has had this view on drones for years. He does not want to see drones as a purpose of spying. In other words he supports technology and knows it can help with some things but knows there must be limits.

Mentioning a drone dropping a bomb to kill 1 perp while leveling a city block is rather absurd to throw on Paul. Of course he does not want ordinance dropping on US soil. That doesn't mean that at some point in the future we develop a way to use highly accurate small arm rounds he would agree or disagree with its use in those cases where innocent life is in jeopardy.

This thread (which I have bumped) shows the ignorance of people who do not understand critical thinking or context.

If I were to cherry pick quotes from Obama I could post a thread every hour for weeks and not show any shread of evidence of flip-floping, I'd just be showing the appearance of it without explaining anything.