Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Paul: Drones would have been OK in Boston manhunt
Hot Air ^ | 4-23-2013 | Ed Morrissey

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 ...


TOPICS: News/Current Events; US: Massachusetts
KEYWORDS: 113th; citizen; counterterrorism; domestic; drones; randpaul
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-63 last
To: Casie
I'm not interested in the original intentions of bad policy.

That is a gross distortion of what I said which alters its meaning entirely.

61 posted on 04/23/2013 6:26:29 PM PDT by TigersEye (If babies had guns they wouldn't be aborted)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: TigersEye

Yeah, we are not going to agree and thats ok. :) I wish you all the best!


62 posted on 04/23/2013 8:51:57 PM PDT by Casie (democrats destroy)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: Casie

I think it would be hard to agree since I believe we are talking about two different things.


63 posted on 04/23/2013 9:10:56 PM PDT by TigersEye (If babies had guns they wouldn't be aborted)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-63 last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson