Rand Paul stepped in it yesterday with an aggressive modification to what people thought was his No Drones Over America policy:
Earlier today Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) made a remark about drones on Fox News Business that suggested his position had changed. “If there is a killer on the loose in a neighborhood, I’m not against drones being used to search them," Paul said.
"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.”
Wow. What about having the police arrest him, wonders Patterico?
Paul issued a clarification:
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.
And so he did. Links to hour-by-hour unoffical transcripts of his filibuster are available at his website. This is from hour 3:
Well, you know, to my thinking, only a bunch of government lawyers could come up with a definition for imminent that says it isn't immediate. So that's the first problem with it. Is that going to be the standard that's used in America? That has to be an imminent threat but it doesn't have to be immediate, because then my next question, what does that mean? Does that mean noncombatants who you think might someday be combatants are an imminent threat? I mean, it is a pretty important question, what is imminent? No, there is no question what is imminent lethal force. Someone aiming a gun at you, a missile, a bomb, any of these things is imminent, and no one questions that. No one questions using lethal force to stop any kind of imminent attack. But we become a little bit worried when the President says imminent doesn't have to mean immediate. And when that happens and then when you see, from what we can tell from the unclassified portion of the drone attacks overseas, many of these people are not involved in combat.
Well. A drone stike to kill al-Awlaki while he is riding in a car and posing an imminent threat of proselytizing on behalf of militant Islam is one thing. A guy waving a gun may be something else.
Now, in the normal course of business I would favor a conventional arrest. However, I hark back to the famous North Hollywood shootout in LA where two men with full body armor stood off the LAPD. A drone strike might have been helpful, or at least, would have ocurred in the context imagined by Rand Paul. OK, it also might have been crazy, since it was downtown LA, but the cops were a bit outgunned. Eventually a SWAT armored truck (and heavier weaponry) helped turn the tide.
Upon further reflection, I am having a hard time imagining a scenario where a domestic drone strike would make sense. If it is a crowded urban setting with many lives at risk, a drone missile explosion seems problematic. On the other hand, if it is more of a rural, or at least isolated setting (maybe the LA docks or some such) then what is the hurry and why can't we wait for conventional law enforcement?
All that said, Paul does seem to have noted the imminent lethal threat exception back during the filibuster, so we count that in his favor.
Is Deval meeting Kleptomom and her hubby at the airport to deliver their EBT cards? Gerry Callahan said this morning that she won't be able to get through the metal detector at the airport because her clothes have all those Lord & Taylor security things on them.
Posted by: Dave (in MA) | April 25, 2013 at 01:03 PM
Aren't the Kardashians involved in the Boston celebrity parade somehow?
Posted by: sbwaters | April 25, 2013 at 01:06 PM
lol, Dave (in MA)!
Posted by: centralcal | April 25, 2013 at 01:10 PM
Speaking of Muffer, my brother sent me some old photos yesterday that included the LUN of Hil & Bill circa early 70's.
As my brother has two teenage boys, I replied as follows:
"I suggest you show that picture of Bill & Hillary, along with a recent pic of Hillary to both your boys as proof that they should not be fooled by a decent body when thinking long term. Of course the face should have been warning enough, but then boys will be boys."
Posted by: Old Lurker | April 25, 2013 at 01:14 PM
Between Coupe Deval and Mumbles, how can the citizens of Boston make it through a presser without rolling their eyes in disgust?
Posted by: Captain Hate | April 25, 2013 at 01:15 PM
Wow OL; Slick has fat woman legs and Muffer looks semi shapely.
Posted by: Captain Hate | April 25, 2013 at 01:18 PM
Ig-- agreed nothing new under the Leftist sun and
Hildabeast is downright Orson Wellsian!! Maybe even Brandoesque. She's definitely got 20lbs on our boy Bill.
Posted by: NK | April 25, 2013 at 01:19 PM
Kerry was always a soft touch, when it came to old style desinformatiya, but since his first trip in the 70s, he's proven himself an Arabist.
Posted by: narciso | April 25, 2013 at 01:23 PM
Jawn of Arabia? That explains the botox that looks really really bad.
Posted by: Captain Hate | April 25, 2013 at 01:30 PM
Jane--It was me and not Dave who made the Boston accent remark, in a lame and apparently obscure attempt at humor. I know that you don't have a Boston accent, because a)I did meet you at a JOM gathering, b) I have listened to your podcasts, and c) I know that you grew up on "the other side" of 128. Which is why I jokingly (and affectionately) implied that you and all the other non-Bostonians might be inclined to mispronounce Waatitown. (I am reminded once again that having to explain my jokes is a pretty good indication that I'm not very good at it).
Have I told you that you are my favorite?
Posted by: boatbuilder | April 25, 2013 at 01:43 PM
Happy BD Mark.
Posted by: Clarice | April 25, 2013 at 03:13 PM
Shall I close out this thread by repeating my thanks for the many birthday greetings? I'm zonked, and will be taking a short nap so I'll have the strength to dig into the Chinese buffet. There was one question of a birthday present. Only God can give the one I want, and I don't think that He's going to. But the rest of you can say a prayer for my poor, troubled Susan.
Purely by accident, three weeks overdue, with my name having been chosen months before, I was born on the Feast Day of St. Mark. I attach no symbolism or significance to that.
Posted by: Mark Folkestad | April 25, 2013 at 04:43 PM