Did Rand Paul flip on drones?

Senator Rand Paul made waves for recent comments he made regarding the use of drones on an episode of Cavuto the other day.

Paul: “I’ve never argued against any technology being used when you have an imminent threat, an active crime going on,” Paul said. “If someone comes out of a liquor store with a weapon and fifty dollars in cash. I don’t care if a drone kills him or a policeman kills him.”

This sounds like a complete 180 degree flip of his position he argued when he took to the Senate floor for a 13 hour filibuster against the assassination of American citizens on US soil. But it appears the Senator misspoke and offered a bad analogy when explaining just which cases where it would be ethical to use a drone on the homeland. Judge Andrew Napolitano took to the airwaves this morning to explain to Stuart Varney how the Senators position hasn’t shifted at all.

Judge Napolitano: The filibuster was about the concept of targeted assassinations, about the president picking and choosing who to kill in the U.S. or elsewhere who have not received due process of law,” the judge explained. “They have not been charged of a crime, they have not been convicted of a crime, they’ve just gotten in the president’s crosshairs. That is the essence of the filibuster.” He probably should have said ‘Coming out of a liquor store shooting and with 50 bucks.’ If someone is using a deadly weapon on police or the civilians, the police can use a deadly weapon with which to repel that person.”

So in essence the argument is whether or not a life is in imminent danger. It would be violation of due process for a drone to be sent to kill someone, regardless if a warrant has been issued for their arrest. This is because a drone, unlike an officer, cannot be in imminent danger. It is nothing more than a piece of plastic. However, if a situation were to arise where a robber were to be shooting at innocent human beings then it would not make much of a difference what tool was used to subdue the criminal. Someone attempting to take life can be shot with a gun or with any other weapon in order to protect innocent life.

Judge Napolitano fears what every liberty lover should fear, the proliferation of public AND private drones that would lead to massive privacy concerns and fears of abuse. He lays down the ethical and legal framework under which drones could be used domestically, but he also addresses the value issue. Do we want drones all over the place? No, but if we do then Judge Napolitano argues that we absolutely need a warrant if the government wants to use one.

Unmanned aerial vehicles have been around for decades. They have only become controversial in recent years because they have proliferated to a great extent and are used by politicians to perform unconstitutional assassinations of American citizens without due process.

Varney argued that the argument of gun control should be expanded to the concept of drone control. The Judge explained that the government should not have the power to do anything that private citizens do not have the power to do. He believes that if the government owns drones, then citizens should as well. This position comes from the idea that government governs with the consent of the governed and must be held to its own standards. Napolitano argues that we need a judicial authorization for the government to be able to “fly pieces of plastic in our faces” and if he were to decide on that question he would say “it doesn’t.”

Senator Rand Paul was right to filibuster against the unconstitutional use of drones in violation of due process. However he has never claimed to be against the technology itself. People who argue for the outright banning of drones forget that the government never bans something for itself. If the state has drones, so should the citizens. 

Senator Paul clarified his statement this morning issuing a press release stating:

Paul: “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 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.”

Judge Napolitano’s appearance on Varney & Co provided by Mediaite (4:30)

So what do you think? Leave your thoughts below.

[socialpoll id=”[socialpoll id=”7146″]