In March, Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) launched a high-profile filibuster on the Senate floor, bringing attention to drone strikes and civil liberties questions that too often go ignored. But as the spectacle faded, a problem emerged -- Paul didn't seem to fully understand the issue he ostensibly cares so much about.
The Kentucky Republican wanted to know if the Obama administration feels it has the authority to "use a weaponized drone to kill an American not engaged in combat on American soil." Attorney General Eric Holders said the "answer to that question is no." For many involved in the debate, the answer was superficial and incomplete -- who gets to define what constitutes "combat"? what about non-weaponized drones? -- but Paul declared victory and walked away satisfied.
And so did his fans, who happily used Paul's position to attack the President from the left. At the time I said Paul's position was nonsense and left a huge loophole for use of drones on US soil when it came to bed-wetting anti-terrorism nonsense. Rand Paul happily got in some fundraising off the stunt and moved on.
Now however since the Boston marathon bombing, and with Rand needing an excuse to scuttle immigration reform he supported last month and to fly the colors on the perpetual security state so he can attack Marco Rubio from the right, Paul is now back to doubling down on use of drones on US soil against US citizens when it comes to Warren Terrah. Steve Benen again:
Today, the senator went further, saying he's comfortable with drones being used over U.S. soil if the executive branch decides -- without a warrant or oversight -- there's an "imminent threat." Paul told Fox News:
"...I've never argued against any technology being used when you 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 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."
Oops. Spoken like a true libertarian.
Tell me again how Rand Paul isn't an authoritarian pig like the rest of the Republicans (and some Dems, granted.) But at least Barack Obama isn't going around saying he doesn't care who kills a guy who knocked over a liquor store. Kinda puts a serious dent in his "unfair sentencing bill" credibility...well not really, you don't have to sentence dead people to prison, do you Rand?
Also, let's not forget his libertarian stances on same-sex marriage and women being able to control their own bodies. Why, it's almost like Rand Paul is an unapologetic Republican jackass and always has been.
And he always will be. Bookmark this one next time Rand decides he needs to attack President Obama from the left, and pay attention to the people who champion his dog and pony show. Those are the ones you need to watch out for.
No comments:
Post a Comment