Sen. Rand Paul: My Position On Drones Has Not Changed
PAUL: The interesting thing, Sean, is that I used the exact same example of robbing the liquor store during the thirteen hours. I can't expect that everybody watched all thirteen hours, but I think at least four or five times I used the example. And I may not have explained it as well as I could have, but what I'm imagining when people get talking about this hypothetical: someone bursts out of a liquor store and there's a gunfight, an active gunfight going on. To me, in those situations, nobody questions whether police respond to deadly force with deadly force. It really doesn't matter so much what the technology is that's used, for example, we use robots to go in and dismember bombs to save human lives. There may come a time when small drones that are a foot in diameter, six inches in diameter, are used by the police when there is a lethal situation and it saves the police officer's life. But that doesn't mean anything regarding targetted assassination, what the fillibuster was about. The idea that someone who's not involved in a gunfight, sitting calmly in a cafe, could be targeted with a strike by a drone or any kind of weapon. A sniper a spear or a knife. We don't want the government to kill people just because we accuse them of being a terrorist.
Email
Share