Rand Paul Now Supports Using Drones to Kill Americans on American Soil (No, This is Not Satire)

hypocriterandYes, you read the title of this article correctly.  When I first heard about this, I thought I was reading something from The Onion.  It couldn’t be true, could it?  The man who staged a 13 hour filibuster because he said he felt the Obama administration was too vague in it’s language on whether or not they would authorize the  usage of drones to kill Americans on American soil, now says he would support using drones to kill Americans on American soil.

I’ll repeat that one more time…

Yesterday, Rand Paul made comments where he supported using drones to kill Americans on American soil—without trial.

You really just can’t make this stuff up.  Trust me, I’ve tried.  If I was going to write a satire piece, “Rand Paul Endorses Drone Manufacturer” might be something I could write, but never “Rand Paul Endorses Killing Americans on American Soil.”

Just when I think these people can’t get any more ridiculous, they prove me wrong.

Let’s look at Paul’s comments just before his 13 hour spectacle of a filibuster where he attacked the Obama administrations comments about the usage of drones on American soil:

“The U.S. Attorney General’s refusal to rule out the possibility of drone strikes on American citizens and on American soil is more than frightening — it is an affront the Constitutional due process rights of all Americans.”

Those are words directly from Rand Paul’s own website.

Now let’s take a look at his comments yesterday regarding the usage of drones on American soil against Americans:

“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.”

Paul supporters, you can spin those comments any which way you want, but what he just advocated was using drones to kill an American on American soil without trial.

It’s a complete contradiction from his 13 hour filibuster he staged just over a month ago.  After relentlessly attacking the Obama administration for their possible usage of drones on American soil, this hypocrite comes out and endorses their use.

In fact, he used one of the very same arguments I have used—drones are controlled by people.  They’re not artificial intelligence operating outside the bounds of human control.  How is it any different if a police officer uses a gun to shoot and kill an armed suspect or a specialized drone to do the same thing?  Either way, the armed suspect is dead.

Then again, I have never made a spectacle of Congress for 13 hours to condemn the use of drones on American soil only to endorse using drones on American soil one month later.

But thank you Senator Paul, with your 13 hour filibuster and subsequent contradiction of that filibuster yesterday, you’ve given me yet another fantastic example of right-wing hypocrisy.

Who needs The Onion when we can just use real life Republican nonsense.

Allen Clifton

Allen Clifton is a native Texan who now lives in the Austin area. He has a degree in Political Science from Sam Houston State University. Allen is a co-founder of Forward Progressives and creator of the popular Right Off A Cliff column and Facebook page. Be sure to follow Allen on Twitter and Facebook, and subscribe to his channel on YouTube as well.


Facebook comments

  • What saddens me the most, leaving aside the raving hypocrisy of the right wing, is the implication that a $50 theft merits a summary death sentence.

    • Try to steel $50 from me while threatening my life.
      Daniel Patrick Hall
      2600 Netherland Ave.
      Riverdale, Bronx NY 10463

      • Do you mind coming to me though? Please don’t bring any weapons (outside of your wit) and I’ll do it for 75.

      • You seriously think that it’s ok to murder someone over 50 dollars? You quite honestly are a moron.

    • Michael Siever

      If the robber was non-white, hell yeah, they would spring for this!

      • beedogs

        because white people aren’t poor and don’t commit crimes.

      • i hope you’re being sarcastic

    • Well, he said he didn’t care – I guess it doesn’t matter…

  • I’m about as left-wing as left-wing gets, yet I have to disagree pointedly with the idea that saying one doesn’t care about X is the same as advocating for X.

    • That’s a good point, but considering how he was so vehemently against drones during his filibuster, even just saying “I don’t care” seems like saying “yes” in this case.

  • goterpsgo

    I find it odd this site has ads promoting WorldNetDaily.

    • The ads are not controlled by the site, they are based on your typical viewing preferences. Google ads.

      • Bonta-kun

        True. I get a ton of Dolphins and Magic ads.

  • I hate the Pauls but it sounds to me like he is
    saying the USE of drones on American soil is unconstitutional and
    against due process and shame on the US attorney general for refusing to
    recognize it’s a possibility it could happen? That’s totally how that
    reads to me.

    • yourstruly

      Sounds like he just said he didn’t care how the guy was killed, to me…

    • I Once Was Andrew

      Sounds like you didn’t read the whole article.

  • Patrick

    ?? I’m no Paul supporter, but the double negative in his statement means that he’s opposed to the possible use of drone strikes. You’re reading the statement wrong. He’s saying the exact opposite of what your think he’s saying.

    • “the double negative in his statement…”

      I don’t think that means what you think it means. A double negative would be if I were to say, “I won’t not get the mail.” There is NO double negative in Rand Paul’s statement. Nada. Zero. Zilch. He endorsed using drones to kill Americans on American soil without due process or trial, for the theft of $50.

      • JOe.D

        “never”, “against”. two negatives. Could be interpreted as “for” but it mostly seems like he has just never argued against the issue. don’t put words in his mouth, it makes your message weaker.

    • Alan

      I don’t think that Paul was smart enough to know that he was using a double negative and consequently was “opposed to the possible use of drone strikes”, Patrick.

    • mikelt

      Including the next sentence that he said makes it clear that he’s making a distinction between using a drone to kill the robber & using a drone to “do surveillance”. So, yeah, he’s okay with killing the $50 robber.

      “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,” Paul said on Fox Business Network. “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.”

  • None of these politicians in power are any good or trustworthy! A real House Cleaning is required here – apparently in Canada as well!

  • Wzp01

    I think someone’s misconstruing Rand’s statements.

    He said during the filibuster that tools like drones can and should be
    used to identify and/or eliminate immediate threats, such as shooting
    down a rogue airliner that’s been hijacked. Which is why his comparison
    of cops having to shoot an armed suspect running out of a liquor store
    wielding a gun is a good one.

    Deadly force when there is an immediate danger to one’s life or to the public is excusable. The method with which this force is doled out is irrelevant. It could be from the turret of a drone, or from a cop’s pistol.

    • Wzp01

      What he was disagreeing with is whether or not drones should be used as a tool of this sort when there is no immediate danger. He specifically mentioned someone that had avoided capture, sitting in a cafe, enjoying a cup of coffee and wondering if they’d be at risk of drone attacks.

      The difference between the scenarios is whether or not there is any immediate danger to the public posed by the person in question.

  • Me

    Excerpt from his website message of April 23…”…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.” Need we define what is such an extraordinary, lethal situation and imminent threat?

  • Wryly

    What am I missing? Isn’t Clifton agreeing with Paul? “In fact, he used one of the very same arguments I have used—drones are controlled by people. They’re not artificial intelligence operating outside the bounds of human control. How is it any different if a police officer uses a gun to shoot and kill an armed suspect or a specialized drone to do the same thing? Either way, the armed suspect is dead.”

  • ShoreBudMike

    When we make passionate statements like the one Paul made, we don’t first think about grammar. The words come out. I believe he clearly said it didn’t matter to him whether the armed robber was killed by a cop or by a drone.

    Whether it’s acceptable for an armed robber to be killed by a drone without “due process” is debatable. But as we’ve seen with the drone strikes on foreign soil that have mistakenly killed innocent citizens, that danger would be present here, as well.

  • J-Way

    The $50 is irrelevant. It doesn’t matter if it’s $50 or $5 or $5,000,000. What’s important is that the just committed armed robbery, has a weapon, and presumably is willing to use the weapon to avoid capture. Killing the guy to prevent him from shooting a cop or a bystander is most definitely justified. Which would be a better police tactic: sending a group of cops (with spouses and children waiting at home) after a gunman, hitting him with a sniper’s bullet, or taking him out with a drone? And before you bleeding-hearts chime in, let’s assume the police have done their due-diligence and have repeatedly tried to get the guy to surrender and are left with no option other than the use of force.

    And for you grammar police out there: This is not a double negative. “Arguing for” or “arguing against” would be two sides of a debate, not a positive vs. negative comment. “I have never argued against” simply means that he has never argued that side of the debate. It does NOT mean that he has argued the for other side of the debate.

  • Gina

    Let’s not forget that the real issue remains— they are using drones, and WITHOUT trial!!! Where did innocent until proven guilty go? I hope you have enough reason to see that you just may be considered a “threat” someday if $50 qualifies

  • What is more shocking to me is his property over person statement that he doesn’t care who kills the liqueur store robber as long as he’d dead. What happened to due process for people who rob liqueur stores?

  • BobJThompson

    Rand Paul, my name is Drone. I’d like you to meet my friends, Mistaken Identity and Collateral Damage. The 3 of us will do all we can to make the American public hate police even more. No need to thank us, we’re glad to be of service.

  • Lacunaria

    “when you have an imminent threat