• Due to a glitch in the old vBulletin software, some users were "banned" when they tried to change their passwords at the end of February. This does not apply after the site was converted to Xenforo. If you were affected by this, please us viua the Contact us link in the footer.

Another US libertarian loses the plot


lies

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 17, 2009
Messages
2,918
Twitter
yes
RAND PAUL: Here’s the distinction, Neil. I’ve never argued against any technology being used when you have an imminent threat, an active crime going on. If someone comes out of a liquor store with a weapon and 50 dollars in cash, I don’t care if a drone kills him or a policeman kills him. But it’s different if they want to fly over your hot tub or your yard just because they want to do surveillance on everyone and they want to watch your activities.

Sen. Rand Paul: I'm Not Against Using Drones To Find Criminals | RealClearPolitics

---

Ah yes, I remember the part of the Constitution where suspects can be killed by drones.

Freedom. Liberty. Death from above.
Rand Paul 2016
 


seabhcan

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 3, 2007
Messages
14,327
RAND PAUL: Here’s the distinction, Neil. I’ve never argued against any technology being used when you have an imminent threat, an active crime going on. If someone comes out of a liquor store with a weapon and 50 dollars in cash, I don’t care if a drone kills him or a policeman kills him. But it’s different if they want to fly over your hot tub or your yard just because they want to do surveillance on everyone and they want to watch your activities.

Sen. Rand Paul: I'm Not Against Using Drones To Find Criminals | RealClearPolitics

---

Ah yes, I remember the part of the Constitution where suspects can be killed by drones.

Freedom. Liberty. Death from above.
Rand Paul 2016
Its a different culture in America. They think its fine for police to kill suspects. Abbeylara happens 1000 times a day there, and they are fine with that.

Remember when the Gardai asked the FBI to review the Abbeylara case? "The five-member FBI investigation concluded that the main problem with the Garda's operations on the day was that they did not shoot John Carthy soon enough."

Different culture.
 

stopdoingstuff

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 26, 2011
Messages
22,876
I don't see the issue. There is no part of the constitution that says that suspects can be killed at all. But just in case you have not being paying attention, and you clearly have not, it is Rand Paul who has been doing most of the leg work on bringing some accountability to the use of drones, and it is the administration that has been doing its level best to avoid answering any direct questions on the issue.
 

stopdoingstuff

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 26, 2011
Messages
22,876
[video=youtube;qoWy7wnucXY]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qoWy7wnucXY[/video]
 

Ernesto Guevara

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 26, 2011
Messages
580
Rand is as much a Libertarian as Enda is...

If i was Ron i would be having that runt DNA'd...
 
D

Dylan2010

RAND PAUL: Here’s the distinction, Neil. I’ve never argued against any technology being used when you have an imminent threat, an active crime going on. If someone comes out of a liquor store with a weapon and 50 dollars in cash, I don’t care if a drone kills him or a policeman kills him. But it’s different if they want to fly over your hot tub or your yard just because they want to do surveillance on everyone and they want to watch your activities.

Sen. Rand Paul: I'm Not Against Using Drones To Find Criminals | RealClearPolitics

---

Ah yes, I remember the part of the Constitution where suspects can be killed by drones.

Freedom. Liberty. Death from above.
Rand Paul 2016
it seems reasoanble enough and better than US policy at the moment. What am I missing?
 

Raketemensch

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 11, 2009
Messages
3,128
RAND PAUL: Here’s the distinction, Neil. I’ve never argued against any technology being used when you have an imminent threat, an active crime going on. If someone comes out of a liquor store with a weapon and 50 dollars in cash, I don’t care if a drone kills him or a policeman kills him. But it’s different if they want to fly over your hot tub or your yard just because they want to do surveillance on everyone and they want to watch your activities.

Sen. Rand Paul: I'm Not Against Using Drones To Find Criminals | RealClearPolitics

---

Ah yes, I remember the part of the Constitution where suspects can be killed by drones.

Freedom. Liberty. Death from above.
Rand Paul 2016
As would be expected, he has missed every point. Who decides who is a criminal? Do we include judge+jury software in the drone's operating system? Couldn't someone be plotting a massive terrorist outrage sitting in his hot-tub?

A lightweight spoofer, the US has even worse politicians that we have, and that's saying something!
 

owedtojoy

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 27, 2010
Messages
46,022
Its a different culture in America. They think its fine for police to kill suspects. Abbeylara happens 1000 times a day there, and they are fine with that.

Remember when the Gardai asked the FBI to review the Abbeylara case? "The five-member FBI investigation concluded that the main problem with the Garda's operations on the day was that they did not shoot John Carthy soon enough."

Different culture.
You can't excuse away female genital mutilation, slavery, cannibalism or ritual murder by the words "different culture". Or just murder.
 

ManOfReason

Well-known member
Joined
May 24, 2007
Messages
4,328
RAND PAUL: Here’s the distinction, Neil. I’ve never argued against any technology being used when you have an imminent threat, an active crime going on. If someone comes out of a liquor store with a weapon and 50 dollars in cash, I don’t care if a drone kills him or a policeman kills him. But it’s different if they want to fly over your hot tub or your yard just because they want to do surveillance on everyone and they want to watch your activities.

Sen. Rand Paul: I'm Not Against Using Drones To Find Criminals | RealClearPolitics

---

Ah yes, I remember the part of the Constitution where suspects can be killed by drones.

Freedom. Liberty. Death from above.
Rand Paul 2016
So you jump from him saying it is ok to shoot someone who poses an immediate threat to the people around them to implying he means it is ok to go around killing suspects. You are simply shlt stirring.
 

Dame_Enda

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 14, 2011
Messages
52,267
Surveillance drones (without the lethal weapons) could work wonders for law enforcement in this country in terms of locating robbers and violent criminals. Especially if they have thermal detection equipment.
 

owedtojoy

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 27, 2010
Messages
46,022
There is this silly clause against "cruel and unusual punishments", and want could be more cruel or unusual that electing an armed cop or drone "pilot" as judge, jury and executioner?

But that is only the VIIIth Amendment to the American Constitution. Obviously, the Founding Fathers wrote it in a moment of weakness, and did not intend to be taken seriously.
 

ibis

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 12, 2005
Messages
12,359
I don't think anyone in the US should have been allowed to read Judge Dredd. Mind you, at least he was human.
 

Honecker

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 19, 2012
Messages
4,777
Is he named after Ayn Rand?
 

Lempo

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 30, 2012
Messages
6,313
RAND PAUL: Here’s the distinction, Neil. I’ve never argued against any technology being used when you have an imminent threat, an active crime going on. If someone comes out of a liquor store with a weapon and 50 dollars in cash, I don’t care if a drone kills him or a policeman kills him. But it’s different if they want to fly over your hot tub or your yard just because they want to do surveillance on everyone and they want to watch your activities.
So, the drone would just be hanging around there doing no surveillance or anything until it suddenly spots a culprit with a gun and 50 bucks?

Why am I thinking about the scene in Robocop where the prototype Robocop did not hear the gun being thrown away and acted accordingly?
 

owedtojoy

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 27, 2010
Messages
46,022
I don't think anyone in the US should have been allowed to read Judge Dredd. Mind you, at least he was human.
The Judge Dredd of the future will go to the office, take over his shift, slip on a headset and instantly be flying over any part of the USA with all sorts of deadly weapons. Retribution will be dished out instantly to bad guys with no appeals allowed.

After this 9 to 5, he will become plain old anonymous Mr Dredd again, and go home to the suburbs and his wife and kids.
 

lies

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 17, 2009
Messages
2,918
Twitter
yes
But he did self-accredit himself as an optometrist, and then lie about it repeatedly, until he was busted. Then he claimed it was all part of his libertarian ideals.

If a Dem had try to give law enforcement the same powers he OK'd in his TV interview we'd be hearing about his heroic filibustering of the idea for weeks
 

Ernesto Guevara

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 26, 2011
Messages
580
- Senator Paul requests comments from the Obama administration covering their policies about using drones on Americans and on American soil

- Attorney General Eric Holder responds saying that there could possibly be extraordinary circumstances where drones might be used on American soil

- Senator Paul, concerned with this comment, then proceeds to stage a 13 hour filibuster (where all he really did is display his ignorance about the rights the Constitution gives our President) claiming the White House response might possibly constitute an endorsement on ignoring our rights as Americans to due process

- Eric Holder then responds, very simply and directly, to Paul’s filibuster stating that no, the president does not have the authority to use a weaponized drone to kill an American not engaged in combat on American soil

-On Monday Senator Paul uses a very specific hypothetical situation, of an armed individual robbing a liquor store of $50, as his circumstance for which he would have no problem with a drone (or police officer) killing the suspect

-On Tuesday, Paul issues a statement saying his policy on drones has not changed and he’s always believed that under extraordinary lethal circumstances drones should be used
Clown...
 

stopdoingstuff

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 26, 2011
Messages
22,876
But he did self-accredit himself as an optometrist, and then lie about it repeatedly, until he was busted. Then he claimed it was all part of his libertarian ideals.

If a Dem had try to give law enforcement the same powers he OK'd in his TV interview we'd be hearing about his heroic filibustering of the idea for weeks
That devastated me. How can I possibly respond?
 

New Threads

Popular Threads

Most Replies

Top