It certainly didn't take Rand Paul long

[mav]

to start to flip-flopping (it at least appears that way).

 

During Rand Paul's questioning of AG Holder, he was very harsh on the administration for not saying that they could/would not use drone strikes on American citizens.  He performed a 13 hour talking filibuster in protest for lack of clarity on the issue.  As of yesterday, it appears that Mr. Paul is changing his tune a little.

 

During his filibuster, Paul stated,

 

I will speak as long as it takes, until the alarm is sounded from coast to coast that our Constitution is important, that your rights to trial by jury are precious, 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.

 

Just recently Paul stated on Cavuto's show https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=JibKfETwNmU that it made no difference if a perpetrator, while coming out of a liquor store with a gun and $50 in their hands, was shot by the police or killed by a drone. Hmmmm.  It seems to me that his statements a month or so ago aren't consistent with what he is saying now.

 

Paul released the following statement yesterday.

              My comments last night 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 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.

 

Could this be just a little politicking on Paul's part to appeal more to the masses for his upcoming 2016 presidential bid?  Possibly.   However, to those who are concerned with the slow erosion of our civil liberties, mission creep, or slippery slope scenarios, this is a little disconcerting. 

 

Whether you liked Paul Sr. or not, you would have to at least give him credit that he was never inconsistent in stating his views. I would rather support and lose with a guy who was consistent with his views, regardless of their popularity, than support someone who I really don't know what they believe.  Out of those who have been mentioned as possibly seeking a 2016 bid, Rand is still my guy, but I will really listen to what he says in the future.  Hopefully, this was just a lack of clarity on his part. 

 

[Rog O]

Senator Paul has not changed his position in the least. He did however use a bad analogy.

[Oh Shoot]

He made point on Hannity tonight that he used exactly the same example of the liquor store thing in his 13 hour filibuster, among other examples, and hence has not changed his position at all.

 

He stresses he is not against reactive law enforcement. Just doesn't believe in "Minority Report" (my phrase, not his).

 

- OS

Edited April 26, 2013 by Oh Shoot

[npgunner]

He made point on Hannity tonight that he used exactly the same example of the liquor store thing in his 13 hour filibuster, among other examples, and hence has not changed his position at all.

He stresses he is not against reactive law enforcement. Just doesn't believe in "Minority Report" (my phrase, not his).

- OS

I think his "Minority Report" phrase comes from the Tom Cruise movie / Phillip Dick book of the same title Edited April 26, 2013 by npgunner

[Guest 6.8 AR]

Yeh, Mav, I think this is just politikin'. I think Rand is still on the right side of the argument. The flip-flop

came off of the stinky feet of the leftward-leaning media. They(the media) is just trying to destroy, or

make us eat one more of our own. Rand doesn't come close to the threshold breached by Sen. Pat

Toomey of PA when he came up with that compromise crap with Manchin, and there may even be more

to that than we know.

[LowBb]

“I’ve never argued against any technology being used when you have an imminent threat, an active crime going on,” Paul told Cavuto, responding to a question about the Boston Marathon manhunt. “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. But it’s different if they want to fly over your hot tub or your yard just because they want to do surveillance on everyone, and they want to watch your activities.”

http://www.infowars.com/rand-paul-no-i-didnt-flip-flop-on-domestic-drone-use/

So, he states he is for drone strikes before he was against them. He is a POLITICIAN, just like the rest of them.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

You should run for the Senate. :D I'm not sure I could do much better than Rand, so I won't.

[LowBb]

Politicians are in the public eye. They know this. We scrutinize them as much as possible. They know this. He came off 13 hours worth of yackin' about the evils of drones. Then, he says they should take out a robber with 50 dollars worth of liquor money.

I'm not saying I agree or disagree with him, but that sounds like a flip-flop if I ever heard one and a view into what he really thinks.

I don't have enough money to run for senate :)

[Guest 6.8 AR]

I know you don't. :D Just trying to put in perspective what we criticize some of them, daily, over.

 

There's just more to it.

[Oh Shoot]

I think his "Minority Report" phrase comes from the Tom Cruise movie / Phillip Dick book of the same title

 

As I said, Rand didn't use the phrase (to my knowledge), that was my take, and of course it referenced those.

 

- OS

Edited April 26, 2013 by Oh Shoot