Rand Paul flip-flops, says drone strikes on U.S. citizens on U.S. soil without charge or trial are okay

By End the Lie

Rand Paul in 2010 (Image credit: Gage Skidmore/Flickr)

Rand Paul in 2010 (Image credit: Gage Skidmore/Flickr)

Senator Rand Paul’s celebrated filibuster of the nomination of CIA Director John Brennan over the Obama administration’s unclear stance on lethal drone strikes on Americans on U.S. soil (which was cleared up slightly) apparently meant absolutely nothing. He has now contradicted himself entirely and stated that he supports the idea of drones killing Americans without charge or trial.

He has completely backed down from his previous position in the wake of the Boston marathon bombing, saying that he “never argued against any technology being used when you have an imminent threat, an active crime going on.”

Paul went on to state that this could even include killing an individual who allegedly committed a robbery. Never does Paul mention a court, a charge, or a trial and he’s already received a lot of criticism for his comments.

“If someone comes out of a liquor store with a weapon and fifty dollars in cash,” Paul said, “I don’t care if a drone kills him or a policeman kills him.”

This sounds eerily like a signature strike like those carried out in Pakistan where people are killed by drones without their identity being known, based on “intelligence indicating patterns of suspicious behavior.”

“It’s different,” Paul claimed, “if they want to come fly over your hot tub or your yard just because they want to do surveillance on everyone and watch your activities.”

Yet Paul once again said, “if there’s killer on the loose in a neighborhood, I’m not against drones being used.”

Since Paul’s comments were clearly referencing the Boston bombing suspect, it must be pointed out that here we’re talking about an alleged killer who actually hasn’t been convicted of anything. That is quite a dangerous and slippery slope to begin traveling down.

“Paul’s comments in light of the Boston suspect’s arrest are a far cry from his staunchly anti-drone stance just last month,” Mediaite points out.

At the beginning of his filibuster that lasted almost 13 hours in total, Paul said, “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.”

Apparently our rights to trial by jury are no longer precious and Americans should be killed by a drone on American soil without first being charged with a crime and without first being found to be guilty by a court.

Paul clearly contradicted his earlier statements on every single point.

During the same interview, Paul said that he did not agree with other Republican senators calling for Dzhokhar Tsarnaev to be treated as an enemy combatant, but as Mediaite rightly points out, this is hardly some kind of principled stance for civil liberties.

“[B]y indicating he would have made the call to kill the suspect with drone if he’d had the chance, Paul seems to have betrayed the principles of his filibuster,” Matt Wilstein writes for Mediaite.

Yet Rand Paul went on the defensive, with his office releasing a statement claiming that his position hasn’t actually changed.

“Armed drones should not be used in normal crime situations,” the statement said, according to Reason. “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.”

“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 concluded.

However, “someone” leaving a liquor store with a weapon and $50 in cash isn’t quite “fighting terrorism and capturing terrorists” yet that is exactly a situation where Paul said he wouldn’t care if a drone was used to kill an American.

Watch the clip below. The “liquor store” comment is made around 2 minutes and 27 seconds into the clip.

Did I forget anything or miss any errors? Would you like to make me aware of a story or subject to cover? Or perhaps you want to bring your writing to a wider audience? Feel free to contact me at [email protected] with your concerns, tips, questions, original writings, insults or just about anything that may strike your fancy.

Please support our work and help us start to pay contributors by doing your shopping through our Amazon link or check out some must-have products at our store.

Top Search Terms Used to Find This Page:

11 Responses to Rand Paul flip-flops, says drone strikes on U.S. citizens on U.S. soil without charge or trial are okay

  1. Rick April 24, 2013 at 5:26 PM

    Can’t get to the video. It says it is unavvailable.

    Reply
    • End the Lie April 24, 2013 at 8:21 PM

      Updated with a longer version of the clip from Rand Paul’s YouTube channel. Thanks for letting me know!

      Reply
  2. Nora April 24, 2013 at 6:38 PM

    Rand is famous for flip flopping. Just another good reason to give politics the boot all together. Both parties are owned by the same evil people, who orchestrate stuff like the Boston Marathon bomb drill to cover the actual bombing. If we believe anything we see or hear on mainstream TV, we need a good hard slap. John Rappaport wrote an excellent article about how citizen journalists are destroying the phony narratives meted out by msm, with their unbiased, frame by frame exposure of the TRUTH of these events. Bless citizen journalists, and you. Rand Paul has obviously been watching too much TV, and he’s been standing too close to the magnets again. Somebody UN-hypnotize him!

    Reply
  3. Calusirius April 25, 2013 at 5:31 AM

    Rand Paul is out of touch with normal Americans. Something like 76% of us believe that the FBI and mercenary groups on the orders of this adminstration committed the Boston bombings. That those two were useful dupes.

    Some 97% absolutely believe that the “federal government” cannot be trusted – yeah, “our” representatives and that 62 or so state governments care corrupt and under the fed gov’s control.

    Rand needs to learn something from his father and our legitimate government – the US Constitution and all laws, bills, admendments, treaties, etc that are in PURSUANCE THEREOF – because “We the People” do NOT want what this, and previous adminstrations are forcing upon us in a treasonous (ye, it does qualify as treason) attempt to destroy our nation.

    If we prevail they will be arrested and prosecuted for: treason, murder, mass murder, war crimes, 18 USC § 2382 – Misprision of treason, and various other criminal and civil offenses.

    I personally cannot wait! We will need to prosecute EVERYONE of them, even those who just stood by and let it happen.

    Reply
  4. David Silva April 27, 2013 at 1:02 PM

    Senator Paul, you had us fooled for a few weeks, but now you have shown your true colors. This brings the total number of US Senators with integrity to 1, Bernie Sanders. Some day soon the good taxpaying people of the United States are going to go Iceland on the Senate and lock up these bought and paid for spineless puppets for accepting bribes, violation of your Constitutional Oath, and war profiteering. You belong in jail Rand,
    with your fellow puppet Senators, God willing you’ll be there soon.

    Reply
  5. InBetweenTheLines April 28, 2013 at 10:56 PM

    And how many would have died if the Pentagon had droned him? More than were actually maimed & killed? Less? Would we then at least pay their medical bills? Would we consider the wounded and dead outside of the target(s) heroes? Or would we consider them collateral damage like in Afghanistan, Iraq and Pakistan?

    Assassination of United States subjects soon to be perfectly legal (and already so in practice – at least outside the country). Events, and the responses to them, have changed the nature of the United States of America.

    With the Constitution being eviscerated, the country cannot remain the same. With new rules we have a different game. And the new rules put the common man in last place. Instead of being read the Miranda Rights, the onus falls on the subject, “Prove you didn’t deserve to be droned!”

    Reply
  6. Joe May 8, 2013 at 2:58 PM

    I don’t think Rand is being literal with his example he used. It seems he is just expressing he doesn’t see a difference between a drone and policeman shooting a suspect, which sometimes requires a judgement call in the moment of extraordinary situations. But, this article does make a definite point for concern with Rand’s statements to the point where I’ll be watching him more closely. Although, I believe he would stand for non draconian and ethical use of an armed drone any day. As a side note, the second amendment should be modified to include the right to bear armed drones.

    Reply
  7. Tony Lopez-Cisneros May 14, 2013 at 11:50 AM

    90% of U.S. politicians Can Be BOUGHT–

    The only question is What Is Their PRICE ?

    Of The 10% That CAN NOT Be BOUGHT–

    90% Will SELL-OUT !

    That Leaves Only 1% Of ALL U.S. Politicians Who Will NEVER Be BOUGHT &-Or NEVER SELL-OUT ! ! !

    THE PROSPECTS FOR THE FUTURE OF THE U.S.A. & HER CONSTITUTION IS VERY, VERY BLEAK ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

    Reply
  8. Tony Lopez-Cisneros May 14, 2013 at 12:16 PM

    Had it NOT Been For The Historic FACT That “The MOST HIGH (& ALMIGHTY GOD [THE LORD JESUS CHRIST (1 John 5:20) ] ) Ruleth In The Kingdom Of Men, And Giveth It To Whomsoever HE Will. And Setteth Up Over It Even The BASEST Of Men.” (Daniel 4:17c-e)

    I, Tony Lopez-Cisneros, Would NEVER EVER Have Gotten Involved In U.S. American Politics Since 1976.

    I Post This HISTORIC FACT On This Website “Til Thou Know That THE MOST HIGH Ruleth In The Kingdom Of Men, And Giveth It To Whomsoever HE Will.” (Daniel 4:25f&g)

    Truthfully, Hoestly & Respectfully Yours,

    Tony Lopez-Cisneros

    Reply
  9. Tony Lopez-Cisneros May 14, 2013 at 12:20 PM

    Had it NOT Been For The Historic FACT That “The MOST HIGH (& ALMIGHTY GOD [THE LORD JESUS CHRIST (1 John 5:20) ] ) Ruleth In The Kingdom Of Men, And Giveth It To Whomsoever HE Will. And Setteth Up Over It Even The BASEST Of Men.” (Daniel 4:17c-e)

    I, Tony Lopez-Cisneros, Would NEVER EVER Have Gotten Involved In U.S. American Politics Since 1976.

    I Post This HISTORIC FACT On This Website “Til Thou Know That THE MOST HIGH Ruleth In The Kingdom Of Men, And Giveth It To Whomsoever HE Will.” (Daniel 4:25f&g)

    Truthfully, Honestly & Respectfully Yours,

    Tony Lopez-Cisneros

    Reply
  10. Tony Lopez-Cisneros May 14, 2013 at 12:30 PM

    Had it NOT Been For The Historic FACT That “The MOST HIGH (& ALMIGHTY GOD [THE LORD JESUS CHRIST (1 John 5:20) ] ) Ruleth In The Kingdom Of Men, And Giveth It To Whomsoever HE Will. And Setteth Up Over It Even The BASEST Of Men.” (Daniel 4:17c-e)

    I, Tony Lopez-Cisneros, Would NEVER EVER Have Gotten Involved In U.S. American Politics Since 1976.

    I Post This HISTORIC FACT On This Website “Til Thou Know That THE MOST HIGH Ruleth In The Kingdom Of Men, And Giveth It To Whomsoever HE Will.” (Daniel 4:25f&g)

    Truthfully, Honestly, Sincerely & Respectfully Yours,

    Tony Lopez-Cisneros

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

Advertise on End the Lie

Would you like to have your business or service exposed to thousands of people every day here at End the Lie? We have a wide variety of options available all at unbeatable prices. At the same time you will be supporting a truth-oriented alternative news outlet as well as hardworking independent journalists across the United States and the world.

If you would like to know more please email us and please be sure to include the details of what you are advertising, what your budget is and what type of advertising format you are looking for, including size(s), length of advertising period and any other pertinent details. The more information you give us, the more accurate the quote will be. We might also be able to work out some unique advertising tailored to your needs so feel free to contact us with questions and ideas.

Note: our advertisers have absolutely no input in what we cover or how we cover it. If this is problematic, you might want to seek out another news outlet. Here at End the Lie we put the truth first and thus no sponsor will be able to control our content. We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone and we will not advertise pornography, gambling, drugs, alcohol, tobacco or anything that might otherwise be illegal.