Rand Paul favors using $12m drones to kill liquor store robbers (video)

GOP Tea Party Senator Rand Paul, who last month led a filibuster against the notion of using drones on American soil, suggested Monday night that we use drones on American soil.

Rand-Paul

GOP Tea Party Senator Rand Paul.

In a weird moment of macho bravado, 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 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.”


Follow me on Twitter: @aravosis | @americablog | @americabloggay | Facebook | Google+ | LinkedIn. John Aravosis is the editor of AMERICAblog, which he founded in 2004. He has a joint law degree (JD) and masters in Foreign Service from Georgetown (1989); and worked in the US Senate, World Bank, Children's Defense Fund, and as a stringer for the Economist. Frequent TV pundit: O'Reilly Factor, Hardball, World News Tonight, Nightline & Reliable Sources. Bio, .

Share This Post

  • -

    But… wut? You want drone strikes against two-bit hoodlums but not against, you know, actual members of al-Qaeda and the like – who are not only more dangerous but who exist in areas where you can’t just have a cop pursue them?
    And wasn’t he the guy who took John Brennan’s statement that he could see (in an extreme, hypothetical situation) the use for drones in the US, maybe, and completely flipped out over it?
    This is fucking mind-boggling.

  • Dwayne Parr

    What an ignorant column. Way to twist what was said into what you wanted to hear.

  • http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bcrEqIpi6sg Moderator4

    disqus_j6EwZmO8P, please do not comment in all caps. It is equivalent to internet shouting and is considered rude. If you do this again, your comment will be deleted.

  • disqus_j6vEwZmO8P

    HE IS SAYING THAT IF THE ROBBER IS SHOOTING THEN YOU CAN SHOOT BACK OR DRONE HIM( POSSIBLE WITH A MINIATURE DRONE SO THEIRS NO CASUALTIES). AND IF THE ROBBER IS NOT SHOOTING AND JUST PUTS THE GUN DOWN THEN THE COP WOULD ARREST HIM. HE SAID THE SAME EXACT THING DURING THE FILIBUSTER. I CAN’T BELIEVE PEOPLE ARE CRITICIZING ONE OF THE FEW PEOPLE WHO IS ACTUALLY TRYING TO PROTECT US FROM DRONES. BRAIN DEAD IDIOTS.

  • samizdat

    I don’t think summary execution comes under the umbrella of exigent circumstances. My liberalism, such as it is, does not come into play here. My concern for the lives of my fellow humans does, however.

  • rmthunter

    Not to mention the “collateral damage.” Drones aren’t all that precise.

  • rmthunter

    Yep — stupidest sitting Senator (although Lindsey Graham seems to be throwing his hat in the ring).

  • vonlmo

    It’s that damn wig on his head that is making Rand talk crazy. C’mon, man-up, & take off the rug, Rand.

  • http://adgitadiaries.com/ karmanot

    This pinhead didn’t fall very far from the tree.

  • Ferdiad

    You apparently are blinded by your liberalism to actually consider what Paul said. There is a well known and established legal principal that you don’t need a warrant when there is exigent circumstances. Paul was clearly just making a point (a stupid one) about how in the event of an actual ongoing crime he doesn’t care how law enforcement is used – but that he is against cameras and big brother when there is is no probable cause. He is actually pretty consistent, it is most of these comments that are in left field.

  • d3clark

    First he droned for thirteen hours about “no drones.” Then, suddenly, drones were OK to stop crimes in progress (just PETTY crimes, though. Not the major million/billion dollar ones Republicans usually perpetrate). Then his office issues a statement saying that his stance on drones has not changed. WHICH stance? Now all of Rand’s followers can just get into the Wayback machine with Mr. Peabody and everything will be all right again. Sounds like Rand is flipping just about as well as Mitt did.

  • http://www.rebeccamorn.com/mind BeccaM

    Yep. It was one of the few times I agreed with him.

  • Sweetie

    He did the right thing by opposing drones and then got heat for it. Now he has cowardly gone back on it.

    Typical politician.

  • bpollen

    Rand is apparently confused… We saw, in a little town called BOSTON, that the effects of bombs can be far reaching. So, he proposes using “bombs-with-wings” to take out suspected liquor-store robbery suspects as they exit a liquor-store. Not only will it take out the suspect (with no regard for anything like rights) it will probably take out the liquor-store entirely. But that’s OK. We can just posthumously declare the victims to be “enemy combatants” and then everything is hunky-dory.

  • http://adgitadiaries.com/ karmanot

    Oh well, it’s God’s will.

  • http://adgitadiaries.com/ karmanot

    Libertarians are just fascists with smiley faces.

  • http://adgitadiaries.com/ karmanot

    Lil’ Rand still thinks segregation is freedom.

  • http://adgitadiaries.com/ karmanot

    I can see it now: Drones over the Hampton s and Martha’s Vineyard. Yes!

  • Indigo

    Libertarians are the vanguard of the Wild West Party so beloved of the NRA-iacs.

  • zeiche

    Was Rand suggesting that the value of a human is worth less than $51 or was he defending the 4th amendment? Sure, his analogy could have been better, but he wasn’t promoting the use of drones to shoot down thieves -at all-.

    I believe John’s argument is called a “straw man” and I would love to hear his position on unwarranted surveillance, since that is really what Rand was talking about.

  • http://www.rebeccamorn.com/mind BeccaM

    I’ve a feeling that Rand’s ‘Fountainhead’-humping supporters may have a bit of a problem with the idea of Death From Above as a go-to strategy for dealing with petty criminals… Whatever street cred he may have collected from his “no drones” filibuster is gone.

    My other suspicion is poor Randy hasn’t quite figured out the whole talking point thing, with respect to not sounding like a complete idiot when being asked sensible questions.

    He’s not against ‘heat seeking devices’ being used? The ones tipped with high explosives and which cannot as yet tell the difference between two different humans who happen to be in roughly the same location? Holy collateral damage, Batman!

  • melbach007

    If someone comes out of a voting booth after voting for Paul I have no problem with hitting them with a drone.

  • nicho

    Now, if had been talking about a drone taking out a banker who was stealing $50 billion from the treasury, I might be willing to listen to him.

  • http://www.facebook.com/monoceros.forth Monoceros Forth

    I daresay that wanking over warm thoughts of high-powered weaponry is far more likely to be a universal conservative principle than concern for the Constitution, due process, or even whining about taxes.

  • Drew2u

    And what happens when they target the wrong person for execution and the robber gets away?

  • Drew2u

    The only thing “Libertarian” about them is they don’t want the gubmint’s grubby mitts on their money. Their money should be free!!!

    I always thought daddy-Paul was a fraud but possibly his son was just an unfortunate product of mental child abuse. Now I’m thinking sonny-boy is just as big of a fraud as his dad ever was.

  • keirmeister

    Ya beat me to it. Reading this story, my first thought was, “But what about Due Process?” These guys are such frauds.

  • samizdat

    So, Mr. Libertarian ZOMG CONSTITUTION(!) isn’t so down much with the whole due process-y, habeas corpus-ish, trial-by-jury-of-your-peers ka-jigger as he claims to be, eh?

    I mean, I’ve always known Libertarians were frauds anyway, but still…

© 2014 AMERICAblog News. All rights reserved. · Entries RSS