Rand Paul flip flops on drones

[jimnyc]

Well this sure has upset a few of the Paul faithfuls!


Ron Paul's vibrant fan base is in open rebellion today over Rand Paul's reversal on domestic drone strikes. The Kentucky senator, whose famous 13-hour Senate floor filibuster did much to strengthen his ties with his father's hardcore following, told Fox Business Network on Tuesday he's OK with drone strikes on American citizens who, for instance, rob a liquor store.

"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."

While it's true that Paul has always made an exception for "imminent threats" -- a 9/11-like moment -- the liquor store scenario struck many libertarians as a very low threshold for domestic drone strikes, especially considering Paul's Senate floor remarks, which if you recall, took a more anti-drone stance. Here's Paul on the Senate floor:

I will speak as long as it takes, until the alarm is sounded from coast to coast that our Constitution is important, that your rights to trial by jury are precious, that 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.

Now, a phalanx of Ron Paul and libertarian forums are revolting at the senator's perceived reversal.

"I am stunned by Rand's statement," reads a blog post on the Daily Paul, one of the largest Ron Paul fan sites. "Unmanned killers in our skys O.K.??? Really? Get away from the Neocons and war mongers Rand, their arrogant and self-righteous air is rotting your brain."

"How cute. The Politician emerges," wrote Paladin69, a user on RonPaulForums.com.

"I disagree with shooting first and asking questions later," added forum administrator Josh Lowry.

"The hell with arresting him I guess," wrote user The Gold Standard sarcastically. "Just fire a missile at him and move on to the next mundane."

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/EmOGeBQzj4g" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

http://blog.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2013/04/23/ron_paul_fans_furious_over_rand_pauls_drone_flip_f lop

[aboutime]

IS ANYONE REALLY SURPRISED???

This is only more proof to back up my words here that have told everyone....WE are being betrayed.

Politicians. No matter what political party, or leanings they may have. Place THEMSELVES first, and WE THE PEOPLE last.

There are NO Politicians alive today who honestly places the needs of WE THE PEOPLE ahead of their own Political careers.

How many times must it be said????

[jimnyc]

I made my rounds through the places were the Paul's are "Gods" and they are cult like - they are ignoring the posts and the video. They can't believe their leader supports the uses of drones on American soil AND has no issue with it being used to kill a murderer or terrorist.

[glockmail]

If you listen to the entire interview instead of taking a few words out of context you'd see that he hasn't reversed at all.

[jimnyc]

If you listen to the entire interview instead of taking a few words out of context you'd see that he hasn't reversed at all.

I did listen to the entire interview and his stance now on the use of drones on American soil is in direct contrast to what he stood for during his filibuster.


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

He's on-board with not only drones being used in our airspace and on American soil, but also to have the authority to kill an American citizen without due process. Can't get much clearer than that. Was this always his stance?

[jimnyc]

..


“I will speak as long as it takes, until the alarm is sounded from coast to coast that our Constitution is important, that your rights to trial by jury are precious, that 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. (emphasis added)”


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

[jimnyc]

And what if Rand were in charge up in Mass after the terrorist was on the loose:


If there’s a killer on the loose in a neighborhood, I’m not against drones being used.

I'm liking him more and more, which means the nutters will soon be dropping him off of their radar as a traitor!

[fj1200]

..

Was he referring to an imminent threat on that second quote?

[jimnyc]

Was he referring to an imminent threat on that second quote?

He didn't say, but regardless, what about the individuals right to due process which he was all about? He very clearly said no American should be killed by a drone without due process. That statement he made sure as hell sounded like a liquor store robbery to me.

[fj1200]

He didn't say, but regardless, what about the individuals right to due process which he was all about? He very clearly said no American should be killed by a drone without due process. That statement he made sure as hell sounded like a liquor store robbery to me.

Sounds like an imminent threat issue to me but I didn't hear the whole thing.

[jimnyc]

Sounds like an imminent threat issue to me but I didn't hear the whole thing.

Even if (and I agree that with an imminent threat that they should drone the fucker to death), but even if that's what he was referring to - his former comments don't leave any wiggle room. He held a filibuster on the very reason. He states without a doubt that the drones should never be used to kill an American citizen on American soil without due process. So I still say, no matter what they are killing the person for, it's certainly without due process.

[jimnyc]

Btw, FJ, his comments are in the video posted above. He speaks of an "active crime" and that the perp has a gun and the money. Even if this individual he is describing is a terrorist, such as this weekend, wouldn't that still be killing them without due process, which is what he stood for last month?

[fj1200]

He states without a doubt that the drones should never be used to kill an American citizen on American soil without due process. So I still say, no matter what they are killing the person for, it's certainly without due process.

First situation: non-imminent threat.


He speaks of an "active crime" and that the perp has a gun and the money. Even if this individual he is describing is a terrorist, such as this weekend, wouldn't that still be killing them without due process, which is what he stood for last month?

Imminent threat. But I understand it can be parsed many ways. Glock referenced the whole interview which could provide more detail.

[jimnyc]

Let me go back to the beginning to make myself clearer. Here is the question that Rand Paul asked of Eric Holder, because he was against it and wanted to know the WH's stance and his thoughts on the President using them:


'Does the President have the authority to use a weaponized drone to kill an American not engaged in combat on American soil?'

And then he states during his filibuster:


“I will speak as long as it takes, until the alarm is sounded from coast to coast that our Constitution is important, that your rights to trial by jury are precious, that 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. (emphasis added)”

The answer he ultimately received from Holder was "No", and in response, Rand Paul stated:


"we're proud to announce that the president is not going to kill unarmed Americans on American soil."

And then now he states:


"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."

I can't think of ANY circumstance in which his earlier comments can be excluded. Short of a foreign enemy invading our land... And I don't think a guy with a gun and 50 bucks sounds like a foreign invader.

[jimnyc]

First situation: non-imminent threat.



Imminent threat. But I understand it can be parsed many ways. Glock referenced the whole interview which could provide more detail.

Again, it doens't matter - he was very clear in his initial stance that NO American should ever be killed on American soil without due process in court. How is what he describes remotely outside of that definition?

[jimnyc]

And his latest statements:


"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."

So I wonder what specific "crimes" he would consider an imminent threat? And what if they happen on the fly, like chasing the bombing suspects, who clearly had IED's and guns, and already committed an attack - OK to kill him without due process. But of course he would need to be read his miranda rights before shooting the missile!

[fj1200]

Again, it doens't matter - he was very clear in his initial stance that NO American should ever be killed on American soil without due process in court. How is what he describes remotely outside of that definition?


Does the President have the authority to use a weaponized drone to kill an American not engaged in combat on American soil?'

First scenario: "not engaged in combat."


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."

Second scenario: "with a weapon."

And he's dead anyway in the situation, drone or policeman. Surely you don't think that he advocates the policeman not killing him without due process.

[jimnyc]

First scenario: "not engaged in combat."



Second scenario: "with a weapon."

And he's dead anyway in the situation, drone or policeman. Surely you don't think that he advocates the policeman not killing him without due process.

Second scenario - with a weapon - I'll concede that. So it IS IN FACT cool by him that an American gets killed on American soil - so long as they have a weapon. So it's fair to say that he doesn't take issue with drones in American airspace, that can be used to kill Americans that are involved in crimes with weapons? No?

[fj1200]

And his latest statements:



So I wonder what specific "crimes" he would consider an imminent threat? And what if they happen on the fly, like chasing the bombing suspects, who clearly had IED's and guns, and already committed an attack - OK to kill him without due process. But of course he would need to be read his miranda rights before shooting the missile!

:dunno: You should get him to join and then interview him for the thread; let's get to the bottom of it.

[fj1200]

Second scenario - with a weapon - I'll concede that. So it IS IN FACT cool by him that an American gets killed on American soil - so long as they have a weapon. So it's fair to say that he doesn't take issue with drones in American airspace, that can be used to kill Americans that are involved in crimes with weapons? No?

I guess so. And he is the right position to be able to pass laws on when/if armed drones are up in the air.

[jimnyc]

I guess so. And he is the right position to be able to pass laws on when/if armed drones are up in the air.

A known murderer/terrorist and I'm on his side, but to take them out for simply having a weapon and being a threat, that should be left to the guys downstairs. Here's the issue - I can come up with several reasons/instances in which I think having a drone in use can be an invaluable tool. The problem is, monitoring such use and ensuring it isn't abused. But I don't think the chance of abuse should rule them out either.

[fj1200]

A known murderer/terrorist and I'm on his side, but to take them out for simply having a weapon and being a threat, that should be left to the guys downstairs. Here's the issue - I can come up with several reasons/instances in which I think having a drone in use can be an invaluable tool. The problem is, monitoring such use and ensuring it isn't abused. But I don't think the chance of abuse should rule them out either.

It was definitely an odd statement. Not a deal killer in my mind.

[revelarts]

sarcasm alert:
The words Rand Paul spoke weeks ago don't mean Jack today to me.
What counts is what i like today.
And if you notice he used the "combat" ergo therefore it means what i want it to mean, so his filibusters statement is the same as the other. "combat" see. "combat".
end sarcasm:


Rand Paul had already fallen hard in the eyes of many serious constitutionalists. 1 he endorsed Mitt Romney.
He's never been as consistent as his father. Though he been better than many senators.

This latest is not as bad as the article or Jim makes out to be,
but it is a step backwards. And it's a shame.
Ron Paul has fallen in many people's eye's, my own included, i believe he sold out his supporters to help Rand get elected.
Family trumped principal there imo.

[jimnyc]

It was definitely an odd statement. Not a deal killer in my mind.

I think his discussion would likely fall under "pandering" or similar, appeasement maybe? His Dad stood strong for years and years with stances others didn't like, I'm not sure Rand is of the same mold just yet.

[jimnyc]

This latest is not as bad as the article or Jim makes out to be,
but it is a step backwards. And it's a shame.
Ron Paul has fallen in many people's eye's, my own included, i believe he sold out his supporters to help Rand get elected.
Family trumped principal here imo.

Oh, so you agree then, that it's ok to take out American citizens on American soil without due process? You had a HUGE issue with it being done to an American terrorist abroad, but now to have someone state it's ok in some circumstances on our own soil, now it's not that bad?

[revelarts]

Oh, so you agree then, that it's ok to take out American citizens on American soil without due process? You had a HUGE issue with it being done to an American terrorist abroad, but now to have someone state it's ok in some circumstances on our own soil, now it's not that bad?

no i do not agree.
I think they should be banned outright for use in America as military/police killing tools (and maybe a moratorium on use overseas) and used strictly in search and rescue purposes and never as surveillance tools.

But to call what Rand said a complete flip flop is over board it seems to me.
you act like that he's said 'never ever use drones' and now 'use drones every day to kill kill kill.' you assume he had no nuauce to his 1st postion and take 1 phrase as the only thing to think of, when he was speaking for hours.
As i said i agree that it's a real step back from his stated position. and it does compromise his earlier position badly.

[jimnyc]

no i do not agree.
I think they should be banned outright for use in America as military/police killing tools (and maybe a moratorium on use overseas) and used strictly in search and rescue purposes and never as surveillance tools.

But to call what Rand said a complete flip flop is over board it seems to me.
you act like that he's said 'never ever use drones' and now 'use drones every day to kill kill kill.' you assume he had no nuauce to his 1st postion and take 1 phrase as the only thing to think of, when he was speaking for hours.
As i said i agree that it's a real step back from his stated position. and it does compromise his earlier position badly.

He held a filibuster and spoke for 13hrs based on his question, which was whether or not an American can be killed by a drone on American soil. It was quite dramatic. He had a VERY clear question:


Does the President have the authority to use a weaponized drone to kill an American not engaged in combat on American soil?'

He wanted assurance that an American, not engaged in combat, cannot be killed on American soil. Now his stance is that there perhaps are times when it might be useful, and used a robber with a gun as an example. I think his earlier comments and his current comments are in direct contrast of one another. And no, I'm not saying he ever excluded them entirely - but he DID exclude them ever being used on an American citizen without due process - and now he just stated he would be ok with it.

[aboutime]

no i do not agree.
I think they should be banned outright for use in America as military/police killing tools (and maybe a moratorium on use overseas) and used strictly in search and rescue purposes and never as surveillance tools.

But to call what Rand said a complete flip flop is over board it seems to me.
you act like that he's said 'never ever use drones' and now 'use drones every day to kill kill kill.' you assume he had no nuauce to his 1st postion and take 1 phrase as the only thing to think of, when he was speaking for hours.
As i said i agree that it's a real step back from his stated position. and it does compromise his earlier position badly.


Rev. If your suggestion of a moratorium on the use of drones oversea's DURING WAR...which is what we are fighting over there.
Would you prefer going back to KILLING Americans who must be on the ground...fighting that war?
Tell us Rev. How would you fight, or defend this nation against the OBAMA INVISIBLE, NON-EXISTENT Terrorists like those two bombers in Boston?

[red states rule]

The nut does not fall from the tree

I wonder if Rand will take a page from his Dad's playbook and say that Boston brought the terror attack on themselves like he did when he said the US brought 9/11 on ourselves

[taft2012]

Rand Paul is not a Constitutionalist. A Constitutionalist is someone who adheres to the original intent of the document.

Rand Paul, Ron Paul, and their drones, are enamored with 20th century liberal court rulings that granted additional protections to criminals.

If you think the Paul drones are doing logical contortions on this one, watch and see what they'll do if Rand ever changes his position on legalized marijuana. His national support would ENTIRELY vanish overnight.

But until that time, they'll just nod along catatonically with everything he says.

[glockmail]

I did listen to the entire interview and his stance now on the use of drones on American soil is in direct contrast to what he stood for during his filibuster.



He's on-board with not only drones being used in our airspace and on American soil, but also to have the authority to kill an American citizen without due process. Can't get much clearer than that. Was this always his stance?

You're focusing, again, on one sentence in that interview. I think he chose his words poorly there, because it's inconsistent wit the rest of what he was saying.

[jimnyc]

You're focusing, again, on one sentence in that interview. I think he chose his words poorly there, because it's inconsistent wit the rest of what he was saying.

I would agree that he chose them poorly, as they were 100% in direct contrast of his prior position. Go ahead and expand for me then, take older quotes, expand this entire interview - it won't matter. But I'm willing to listen out.

But here's what we have:

1st he states that no American should ever be able to be killed on American soil, who is not engaged in combat.

Then he states it is OK if a drone takes out someone, as it doesn't matter if it's a policemen or a drone. Even at worst case, a murderer lets say. Now suddenly it's OK? His 1st statement was very clear and rather absolute that NO AMERICAN can be killed on our soil by a drone. Now he's making exceptions.

[glockmail]

I would agree that he chose them poorly, as they were 100% in direct contrast of his prior position. Go ahead and expand for me then, take older quotes, expand this entire interview - it won't matter. But I'm willing to listen out.

But here's what we have:

1st he states that no American should ever be able to be killed on American soil, who is not engaged in combat.

Then he states it is OK if a drone takes out someone, as it doesn't matter if it's a policemen or a drone. Even at worst case, a murderer lets say. Now suddenly it's OK? His 1st statement was very clear and rather absolute that NO AMERICAN can be killed on our soil by a drone. Now he's making exceptions.

I'm not going to put together a transcript of his conversation and argue that with you. Ignore the poorly worded sentence and I get the impression that he's entirely consistent with his earlier stance. Perhaps he meant to say "apprehend" verses "take out".

[jimnyc]

I'm not going to put together a transcript of his conversation and argue that with you. Ignore the poorly worded sentence and I get the impression that he's entirely consistent with his earlier stance. Perhaps he meant to say "apprehend" verses "take out".

How in the world would a drone apprehend someone? Anyway, I don't think changing his thoughts/words is the way to go, maybe stick with what he really stated. I thought it was abundantly clear, that he initially states an American should never be killed on American soil, while not in combat, without due process. Would you or anyone else disagree that this was his verbal take when he held his filibuster?

I've watched it several times now, and I can't fathom anyone doing so and not seeing that he is saying it would be ok under certain circumstances, and used an armed robber with a gun as an example. He has also stated clearly now that he also thought it would have been OK to use one in the manhunt for the Boston bomber and to take him out. In other words, in his "clarification tour" he has been on since his comments to Cavuto, he has only cleared up the fact that it CAN be done to an American on American soil, as a tool to combat someone who is fighting back.

Ok, so someone is fighting back, and the drone takes him out... Sounds like someone was killed without due process to me.

If Paul's stance is that he is only against them when it targets someone for assassination and that person is unarmed, and not in the midst of fighting anyone - well, lets just say that I think he is intelligent enough to have stated as much had that been the case.

[jimnyc]

During an interview with Neil Cavuto on Fox Business Network Monday night, Paul attempted to make a distinction between the American "sitting in a café" example he has often cited and the "imminent threat" faced by Boston bombing suspect Dzhokhar Tsarnaev Friday night. "I've never argued against any technology being used when you have an imminent threat, an active crime going on," Paul said. Though his next example offered up a disturbingly low bar for the predator drone option. "If someone comes out of a liquor store with a weapon and fifty dollars in cash," he said, "I don't care if a drone kills him or a policeman kills him."

"It's different," Paul continued, "if they want to come fly over your hot tub or your yard
just because they want to do surveillance on everyone and watch your activities." But again, he added, "if there's killer on the loose in a neighborhood, I'm not against drones being used."

Paul's comments in light of the Boston suspect's arrest are a far cry from his staunchly anti-drone stance just last month. At the very beginning of his filibuster, Paul delivered the words below, which appear to directly contradict his statements from last night. "I will speak as long as it takes, until the alarm is sounded from coast to coast that our Constitution is important, that your rights to trial by jury are precious, that 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."

The purpose of the filibuster was to put pressure on Attorney General Eric Holder and the CIA's John Brennan to renounce the idea of using drones to kill American citizens. During the Boston investigation last week, the Obama administration along with the FBI made a very deliberate choice to capture the younger suspect alive. Not only because that is the lawful thing to do with a suspect who, however dangerous, is not resisting arrest, but also because preserving the ability to question him will give the country to best chance at finding answers as to why he and his brother committed the attack.

[glockmail]

During the filibuster he's opposing using drones to kill suspects who aren't actively doing the crime. To Cavuto he's saying he doesn't mind using them, or a regular cop on foot, to kill a suspect who presents a clear and present danger.

[Kathianne]

My opinion of Rand increased favorably with the filibuster, it has decreased on this current flop.

Can't undo the flop.

[jimnyc]

During the filibuster he's opposing using drones to kill suspects who aren't actively doing the crime. To Cavuto he's saying he doesn't mind using them, or a regular cop on foot, to kill a suspect who presents a clear and present danger.

Really, then why did he say the following:


Does the President have the authority to use a weaponized drone to kill an American not engaged in combat on American soil?'

How does his filibuster words INCLUDE killing an American citizen, to kill a "suspect"? Again, how is his original standing NOT an absolute, that he is against drones killing Americans on American soil, without due process? Main point being, his stance is now that he doesn't have an issue with drones being used to kill American citizens on American soil, in certain circumstances.

[taft2012]

no i do not agree.
I think they should be banned outright for use in America as military/police killing tools (and maybe a moratorium on use overseas) and used strictly in search and rescue purposes and never as surveillance tools.

Pothead Conservative Update: You do can whatever the hell you want with drones except look for marijuana fields.

[fj1200]

Pothead Conservative Update: You do can whatever the hell you want with drones except look for marijuana fields.

Square hole? Meet round peg.

[revelarts]

Pothead Conservative Update: You do can whatever the hell you want with drones except look for marijuana fields.

i really think you might need counseling on this marijuana thing.
I mean, wow.

Or maybe you protest too much.

Is it fear... or fetish

[glockmail]

Really, then why did he say the following:



How does his filibuster words INCLUDE killing an American citizen, to kill a "suspect"? Again, how is his original standing NOT an absolute, that he is against drones killing Americans on American soil, without due process? Main point being, his stance is now that he doesn't have an issue with drones being used to kill American citizens on American soil, in certain circumstances.


It's apples and oranges. A suspect who is a clear and present danger to the general public can be stopped using deadly force. If a guy has a knife at someone's throat yelling the he's going to kill them, you have the right, even as a citizen bystander, to shoot the guy. It doesn't matter if the bystander is a cop on the street, or a cop 100 yards away as a sharpshooter, or a cop behind a drone.

[jimnyc]

It's apples and oranges. A suspect who is a clear and present danger to the general public can be stopped using deadly force. If a guy has a knife at someone's throat yelling the he's going to kill them, you have the right, even as a citizen bystander, to shoot the guy. It doesn't matter if the bystander is a cop on the street, or a cop 100 yards away as a sharpshooter, or a cop behind a drone.

So he is saying he doesn't have a problem with drones being used, so long as the person presents a threat or is armed?

[aboutime]

i really think you might need counseling on this marijuana thing.
I mean, wow.

Or maybe you protest too much.

Is it fear... or fetish


Rev. Which medical school did you attend where you became a Doctor of Psychiatry?

Unless you have such training. Nothing you say here means JACK!
Get rid of your DOOBIE, and start breathing real air. It helps mental awareness.

[taft2012]

Is it fear... or fetish

It's an awareness. An understanding.

You guys have an abnormal fear of law enforcement and search & seizure practices.

I don't get the impression you guys are serious career criminals, moving and dealing in stolen merchandise or large amounts of narcotics.

Yet you do something regularly that keeps you in constant fear of the police, constantly griping about what law enforcement can and can not do.

If I'm wrong, and it's some other criminal behavior you participate in regularly that has you concerned, just say so. I doubt it though, because somehow it's always the marijuana legalizing kooks you guys flock to.

Generally speaking, normal people don't do that. They certainly do not assemble an entire system of political beliefs around it. They don't fabricate a history of search & seizure that's never existed, and bemoan an "erosion of rights."

[aboutime]

It's an awareness. An understanding.

You guys have an abnormal fear of law enforcement and search & seizure practices.

I don't get the impression you guys are serious career criminals, moving and dealing in stolen merchandise or large amounts of narcotics.

Yet you do something regularly that keeps you in constant fear of the police, constantly griping about what law enforcement can and can not do.

If I'm wrong, and it's some other criminal behavior you participate in regularly that has you concerned, just say so. I doubt it though, because somehow it's always the marijuana legalizing kooks you guys flock to.

Generally speaking, normal people don't do that. They certainly do not assemble an entire system of political beliefs around it. They don't fabricate a history of search & seizure that's never existed, and bemoan an "erosion of rights."


taft. Of course. Everything you stated above depends on whether they are smart enough to know what they are griping about.
Even the worst of the worst criminals are often smarter than those who must cling to accusing others, to hide their own ignorance.

[glockmail]

So he is saying he doesn't have a problem with drones being used, so long as the person presents a threat or is armed?... is a clear and present danger.

[jimnyc]

... is a clear and present danger.

Fine, so he has no issue with a drone being used on an American citizen on American soil, without due process, so long as they present as a clear danger. I know police can also shoot someone when they are a danger as well, but I sure got the idea that he was against drone use altogether. And it's not like they're equipped to apprehend, stun... Do they do more than shoot missiles? Hey, I'm all for it, I don't have an issue with such an advanced tool helping law enforcement or our military taking out the trash. But it doesn't sound the same to me, his stance. I think his previous stance is exactly what his followers believed - that such a tool can't be used from above, like we are at war, and "assassinating" people from above, danger or not.

I've had this discussion with others over the years, since drones became a tool. Most of those against them are against them totally, not on our soil at all, that a drone is a war tool, similar to a fighter jet, only remote controlled. So is it ok to take someone out with an F16 if they present a danger? :)

[glockmail]

Fine, so he has no issue with a drone being used on an American citizen on American soil, without due process, so long as they present as a clear danger. I know police can also shoot someone when they are a danger as well, but I sure got the idea that he was against drone use altogether. And it's not like they're equipped to apprehend, stun... Do they do more than shoot missiles? Hey, I'm all for it, I don't have an issue with such an advanced tool helping law enforcement or our military taking out the trash. But it doesn't sound the same to me, his stance. I think his previous stance is exactly what his followers believed - that such a tool can't be used from above, like we are at war, and "assassinating" people from above, danger or not.

I've had this discussion with others over the years, since drones became a tool. Most of those against them are against them totally, not on our soil at all, that a drone is a war tool, similar to a fighter jet, only remote controlled. So is it ok to take someone out with an F16 if they present a danger? :)

Since an F16 flies close to the speed of sound and costs several thousand dollars an hour to operate it would be difficult to use it to apprehend a criminal as well as justify its use. The drone is an advancement of technology. With advancements come opportunity to fight crime.

I envision a future surveillance weapon the size of a fly. It would not simply orbit a several block crime scene but fly directly into the scene, into buildings, land on a ceiling and stream video of criminals plotting, or perhaps a hostage situation. That information could be used by a sniper to send a projectile into the head of a kidnaper.

Further into the future the fly weapon would be able to land on the bad guy and inject a fast acting poison to stun him...

[aboutime]

Since an F16 flies close to the speed of sound and costs several thousand dollars an hour to operate it would be difficult to use it to apprehend a criminal as well as justify its use. The drone is an advancement of technology. With advancements come opportunity to fight crime.

I envision a future surveillance weapon the size of a fly. It would not simply orbit a several block crime scene but fly directly into the scene, into buildings, land on a ceiling and stream video of criminals plotting, or perhaps a hostage situation. That information could be used by a sniper to send a projectile into the head of a kidnaper.

Further into the future the fly weapon would be able to land on the bad guy and inject a fast acting poison to stun him...


glockmail. Sorta looks like that FAST ACTING stuff to stun...has already been used. Just before the last TWO election days, when millions of directionless, blind, nearly totally mindless Americans went to the polls, and placed their 2nd vote for Obama.
Now the problem is. The INJECTION is irreversible.

[Robert A Whit]

Since an F16 flies close to the speed of sound and costs several thousand dollars an hour to operate it would be difficult to use it to apprehend a criminal as well as justify its use. The drone is an advancement of technology. With advancements come opportunity to fight crime.

I envision a future surveillance weapon the size of a fly. It would not simply orbit a several block crime scene but fly directly into the scene, into buildings, land on a ceiling and stream video of criminals plotting, or perhaps a hostage situation. That information could be used by a sniper to send a projectile into the head of a kidnaper.

Further into the future the fly weapon would be able to land on the bad guy and inject a fast acting poison to stun him...

(Wikipedia)

Overview
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/f3/F-16-Vulcan-Cannon-2vent.jpg/150px-F-16-Vulcan-Cannon-2vent.jpg (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:F-16-Vulcan-Cannon-2vent.jpg)

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/25/F16cannon.JPG/150px-F16cannon.JPG (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:F16cannon.JPG)


Comparison between F-16's inset cannons; early aircraft had four vents, while later aircraft had two.


The F-16 is a single-engine, very maneuverable, supersonic, multi-role tactical fighter aircraft. The F-16 was designed to be a cost-effective combat "workhorse" that can perform various kinds of missions and maintain around-the-clock readiness. It is much smaller and lighter than its predecessors, but uses advancedaerodynamics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aerodynamics) and avionics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avionics), including the first use of a relaxed static stability (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relaxed_stability)/fly-by-wire (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aircraft_flight_control_systems#Fly-by-wire) (RSS/FBW) flight control system, to achieve enhanced maneuver performance. Highly nimble, the F-16 can pull 9-g (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G-force) maneuvers and can reach a maximum speed of over Mach (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mach_number) 2.