Posted on 04/23/2013 9:54:24 AM PDT by Sir Napsalot
An important clarification from Senator Rand Paul, who made headlines for a rare talking filibuster challenging Barack Obama to explain the difference between using drones against American citizens overseas and using them in the United States. Neil Cavuto asked Paul about the distinction yesterday in light of the manhunt for American citizen Dzhokhar Tsarnaev on Friday, in which a drone or two with real-time infrared downlook capabilities above Watertown might have saved a little time. Paul told Cavuto that this wasn’t the use to which he objected:
“If there’s a killer on the loose in a neighborhood, I’m not against drones being used to search them out, heat-seeking devices being used, I’m all for law enforcement,” Paul said on Fox Business Network’s Cavuto last night. “I’m just not for surveillance when there’s no probable cause that a crime’s being committed.”“Here’s the distinction, Neil, I’ve never argued against any technology being used when you have an imminent threat, active crime going on,” he added.
Actually, I thought that distinction was pretty clear all along. The police have used helicopters for decades to track suspects on the run from law enforcement, and haven’t been shy about using the latest surveillance technology in the air or on the ground. Case law has long allowed that kind of aerial surveillance, especially for open areas outside of houses, even in back yards. The only difference is in the aerial platform and whether a pilot is along for the ride.
The question Paul wanted answered was not about surveillance but about offensive operations ......
(Excerpt) Read more at hotair.com ...
The aliens have been waiting for that. We’re never gonna see ‘em comin’ at this rate! ;^)
/facepalm
LOL
I’ve seen the ‘triangles’ myself.
I figured it was our guys in some new tech-gizmo and waved at them.
Salamander The Unflappable Pragmatic
[I more curious as to why they were looking for the northen lights *here*]
“Probably a crime being committed somewhere in this neighborhood. Lets buzz this street again just to make sure. “
Afghanistan, LOL.
I was only making the point that restrictions on the civilian ownership of any weapon goes against the true spirit of the 2nd Amendment, which aims for civilians to outmatch the power of the government.
Clearly not what Rand Paul meant. What’s the difference between a helicopter doing surveillance of an active chase and a drone?
The newsies were telling people the Northern Lights might be visible further south than usual a week or so ago. My friend in south Jersey heard it and was hoping to see them too. Never did.
It boils down to, do we have just cause to trust government to do what they say they are going to do?
No. So, do we shut down all gooberment activity (because I don’t trust them on anything) and if ‘yes’ how do we do that?
The Technology "was" used in Boston, but because it was connected
to a helicopter it's ok I guess.
I am questioning Sen Paul. From what he said, he can not guarantee government won't use surveillance drones when there’s no probable cause that a crime’s being committed.
Ah, I see.
Can’t imagine how they’d see them this much farther south and in the mountains but I reckon it could happen.
My grandmother saw them when she was a kid but we’re talking 90 years ago.
What slippery slope?
The first sign of real trouble and those candy asses would be on the hotline
to the National Guard.
(Transcipt) 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."
What Ed at Hot Air showed is 1:49 long. Cut off just before my emphasis in Paul's response. WHY?
I’m just noting how very very easy it would be to slip down that slope. :p
On that point we would agree. Honestly, we should be able to easily procure selective fire weapons if we chose to do so without government restriction.
Authority always carries with it the potential for abuse. The question is are policies going to be set that are abusive from the start? I don’t see Rand implying that at all.
Nah. I'm not interested in the original intentions of bad policy. And I may not be the only one.
From Drudge- Ron Paul fans furious over Rand's drone stand..., How Rand learned to love the drone.
I like Rand to and all, but he's wrong on the drones and I'm growing weary of well meaning republicans opening doors for psychopath liberals. Its ok to just say no. But like girls with low self esteem at prom, republicans keep saying dumb junk like, "Ok. Under the dress. But over the bra." :p
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.