Rand Paul Is Getting Hammered For Saying He'd Support Droning An Armed Robbery

Courtesy of Fox Business News

Kentucky Senator Rand Paul faced a firestorm of criticism from across the political spectrum Tuesday over his apparent reversal on domestic drone strikes.

The controversy centered around an interview Paul gave with Fox Business Network late Monday night, in which he said he would be fine with the police using drones to kill garden-variety criminals.

"Here's the distinction: I have never argued against any technology being used when you have an imminent threat, an act of crime going on," Paul said. "If someone comes out of a liquor store with a weapon and $50 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."

The remarks are a major departure from Paul's 13-hour anti-drone filibuster, undercutting the pro-civil liberties position upon which the Kentucky Republican has launched his national political star.

"I will not sit quietly and let [the president] shed the constitution." Paul said on the Senate floor last month. "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."

To be fair, Paul has always granted an exception for "imminent threats." But the hypothetical scenario he used Monday — of a run-of-the-mill liquor store robbery — is disconcerting, given that this hypothetical drone killing would occur after the crime had been committed and innocent people were no longer in danger.

Paul's apparent reversal sparked fierce criticism among both liberals and conservatives, most notably the Drudge Report, which led with this banner headline Tuesday night:

Drudge Report

And perhaps predictably, Paul's apparent reversal has caused a revolt among supporters of Paul's father, Ron Paul, whose rabid libertarian following has long been skeptical of the younger Paul.

"I am stunned by Rand's statement. Unmanned killers in our skys O.K.??? Really?" one user posted on the Daily Paul forum. "The guy is simultaneously capable of great good and evil it seems. Scares me. What are our alternatives? I don't know but, I am looking."

(h/t Foreign Policy)

UPDATE:

In a statement Tuesday night, Paul reiterated that he does not support domestic drone strikes when there is not an ongoing and imminent threat:

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.