Smart. Sharp. Funny. Fearless.
Tuesday, October 25, 2016

Rand Paul: ‘I Don’t Care If A Drone Kills Him Or A Policeman Kills Him’ [VIDEO]

Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) clarified a point on the use of drones that he didn’t mention in his 13-hour filibuster: He doesn’t mind if a drone is used to kill American citizens if there’s an “imminent threat.” He told Fox Business’ Neil Cavuto:

“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. 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. But it’s different if they want to come fly over your hot tub or your yard just because they want to do surveillance on everyone, and they want to watch your activities.”

Conservatives are arguing that this has always been Paul’s position:

The senator has always been open to the idea of drones being used, with a warrant, in the process of a police investigation. And, as a practical matter, if that could have meant, say, a hundred fewer Boston doors knocked on by SWAT teams, isn’t that a net victory for civil liberties? The bit about armed drones, “I don’t care if a drone kills him or a policeman kills him,” is a tad more strongly worded than prior statements but by no means new.

If this is true, Paul’s entire filibuster was based on the premise that he was against the president using a drone to kill an American citizen on U.S. soil not engaged in combat — a premise that only conspiracy theorists have imagined the president would do.

To Paul’s credit, he also expressed that the suspect in the Boston Marathon bombing should be tried in civilian court, unlike senators Lindsey Graham (R-SC) and John McCain (R-AZ), who have called for Dzhokhar Tsarnaev to be designated an enemy combatant.

Click here for reuse options!
Copyright 2013 The National Memo
  • old_blu

    A republican talking out of both sides of his mouth again. Nothing to see here just the same old same old.

  • Sand_Cat

    As always, Paul is an idiot.

  • elw

    They also think it is OK for drones to fly over Planned Parenthood Clinics and shoot anyone coming out.

  • John Pigg

    Rand will not be capable of holding together his fathers liberal and conservative political faction.

    Regrettable because the GOP badly needs more non-interventionist Republicans.

  • itsfun

    Rand Paul went over the videos and his filibusterer. He used the same exact words in both. It would be nice if the media actually reported the truth at least once in a while. Maybe that’s why reporters are respected less than used car salesman.

    • RobertCHastings

      Marie Antoinette once said, “Let them have their cake and eat it,” when it has been shown time and time again that one cannot have one’s cake AND eat it. Rand Paul cannot, logically or pragmatically,decry the use of drones in one breath and turn right around and applaud it, actually beg for it. If he wants a guarantee from the president that drones will not be used against Americans on American soil, is it not contradictory to advocate their use in patrolling our streets and shooting robbery suspects? Unless, of course, they have the technology to differentiate between non-citizens and citizens -then, I guess it would be okay.

  • JDavidS

    I wonder if he hurt himself with all the twisting and contorting he did?

  • Thing about our justice system is that it works this way, you are innocent until proven guilty and until you are proven guilty and condemned to death your life has to be protected to the best of our society’s ability.Even the marathon bombers have that right until they go to trial. No matter how bad it gets, we must protect the innocent, then we can let the NRA shoot people.

  • howa4x

    Rand Paul has shifting sand under his feet. This causes him to shift positions each time he moves. It is a neat trick. Too bad when he runs for president that all these shifts that are being tracked by Pac’s and media hounds will come up as questions about him and how he thinks and why he shifts positions so much. I seem to remember another Republican that was like this. I think his name was Mitt, and he didn’t fare that well.