Rand Paul down with using drones to summarily execute American citizens

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

Just last month the village idiot Aqua Buddha, Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY), led a filibuster against the notion of using drones on American soil. Wingnuttia went wild with "I Stand with Rand" hashtags on twitter, fund raising emails, and even a line of merchandize online. There was a brief "Paul bump" in Beltway media villager speculation about 2016.

So this is fun. On Monday, Aqua Buddha told FAUX News that he is down with using drones on American soil and using them to summarily execute American citizens without the niceties of constitutional due process. Oh yes he did. John Aravosis reports, Rand Paul favors using $12m drones to kill liquor store robbers (video):

In a weird moment of macho bravado, Rand Paul told Fox the following:

I’ve 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 fifty dollars in cash, I don’t
care if a drone kills him
or a policeman kills him…

If there’s a killer on the loose in a neighborhood, I’m not against
drones being used to search them out, heat-seeking devices being used,
I’m all for law enforcement. I’m just not for surveillance when there’s
not probable cause that there’s a crime being committed.

Okay then.  I’m sure there’s nothing better we could be doing with a
$12 million drone than risking it on catching a guy who stole fifty
bucks.

Not to mention, America’s new policy on liquor store robberies is
immediate summary execution of the suspect? Seriously? What if he didn’t even
rob the store – what if the guy leaving is a hostage that escaped and
ran out? Why not just nuke the place and let god sort them out, Rand?
 Someone clearly got an earful about his drone filibuster and is now
trying to make amends with “the crazy.”

UPDATE: Aaaand the walk back. . . I did not mean what you can plainly see me say. Aqua Buddha issued a statement clarifying his position.

"My comments [on Tuesday] left the mistaken impression that my
position on drones had changed. 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.

"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."

It turns out that his own supporters were outraged and demanded an explanation.

Comments are closed.