Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

ProSense

(116,464 posts)
Wed Apr 24, 2013, 09:26 AM Apr 2013

Paul tries to walk back drone comments

Paul tries to walk back drone comments

By Steve Benen

Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) told Fox's Neil Cavuto yesterday that he's comfortable with the executive branch having the authority to use drones on Americans over U.S. soil if an administration perceives an "imminent threat." The senator even went so far as to say, "If someone comes out of a liquor store with a weapon and 50 dollars in cash, I don't care if a drone kills him or a policeman kills him." <...> Paul issued a statement last night, 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."

The statement seemed necessary -- many of the Republican's own supporters were outraged and demanded an explanation...the Kentucky Republican still seems confused about the policy he claims to care so much about.

When the senator launched his nearly 13-hour filibuster last month, Paul was primarily focused on opposition to the use of drones over U.S. soil. He specifically wanted to know if the Obama administration feels it has the authority to "use a weaponized drone to kill an American not engaged in combat on American soil." The Justice Department answered the question the next day: no, it does not believe it has that authority. Paul was delighted and moved on.

But in last night's statement, the Kentucky lawmaker appears to have a slightly different posture: if the executive branch perceives "an ongoing, imminent threat" inside the United States, then the executive branch -- according to Rand Paul -- has the authority to use drones over American soil.

This is what he said on Fox and what he said in his statement clarifying what he said on Fox.

- more -

http://maddowblog.msnbc.com/_news/2013/04/24/17894664-paul-tries-to-walk-back-drone-comments

Disappointing those who 'stand with Rand'
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022742805


10 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies

patrice

(47,992 posts)
1. Facists will wear *A*N*Y* persona in their drive to power ONLY for power's sake alone, that is, NO
Wed Apr 24, 2013, 09:35 AM
Apr 2013

other principle or purpose is of higher value than acquiring more power.

ProSense

(116,464 posts)
2. "not retracting."
Wed Apr 24, 2013, 09:40 AM
Apr 2013
Update: In response to the backlash, Sen. Paul released a statement about his views on domestic drone strikes. "Armed drones should not be used in normal crime situations," Paul said. When asked if he was retracting his hypothetical about an armed liquor store thief being killed by a drone, his spokeswoman Moira Bagley told Foreign Policy "not retracting." Here's the full statement:

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



patrice

(47,992 posts)
3. Scratch an absolutist, find a relativist EVERY time. & The problem with that is that, since they're
Wed Apr 24, 2013, 09:44 AM
Apr 2013

being dishonest about relative decisions, they aren't much in the way of actual DECISIONS. They produce shots in the dark, so whatever a given "decision" MIGHT have served isn't even served by the blindness of the Deciders.

ProSense

(116,464 posts)
4. All that Rand Paul's hypothetical did was
Wed Apr 24, 2013, 10:02 AM
Apr 2013

show his true colors.

Rand Paul, Supposed Defender Of Civil Liberties, Calls For Jailing People Who Attend ‘Radical Political Speeches’
http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2011/05/31/232182/rand-paul-criminalize-speech/

Sen. Rand Paul: Civil Rights Act Was Overreach Because "I Can't Have A Cigar Bar Anymore"
http://politicalcorrection.org/blog/201201090003

CJCRANE

(18,184 posts)
6. Yes. Didn't he spend hours explaining why he was against drones
Wed Apr 24, 2013, 11:09 AM
Apr 2013

in a filibuster speech?

Now, he refutes all of that in a couple of sentences.

patrice

(47,992 posts)
7. And he'd double- or triple-cross BOTH of those positions if that'd result in HIS OWN ascendance to
Wed Apr 24, 2013, 11:22 AM
Apr 2013

power.

Enrique

(27,461 posts)
5. $50 was too low a threshold
Wed Apr 24, 2013, 10:30 AM
Apr 2013

Paul clarifies that if he's president he won't drone any robber with less than $100.

Johonny

(20,684 posts)
8. So if Woolworth won' t let a drone sit at the counter Rand Paul just wouldn't eat there
Wed Apr 24, 2013, 11:58 AM
Apr 2013

unless the steak is on sale...

ProSense

(116,464 posts)
10. Rand Paul: Left-Wing Blogs Conjured Up Drone Flip-Flop Charge
Wed Apr 24, 2013, 06:39 PM
Apr 2013

Rand Paul: Left-Wing Blogs Conjured Up Drone Flip-Flop Charge
http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/entry/rand-paul-left-wing-blogs-conjured-up-drone

Rand: The "left-wing blogs" made me say I'd use a drone to kill a guy suspected of stealing $50 from a liquor store.

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Paul tries to walk back d...