Rand is right about drones
By Michael Mealling
Rand Paul stepped in it earlier today by making a statement about drones that those who didn't actually listen to his filibuster speech think is inconsistent. But as Jordan Bloom says, his position is still entirely consistent.
The word 'drone' befuddles me greatly. Its just a remote controlled airplane or helicopter. In some cases they do have armaments and they do have cameras. Hobbyists have been doing that for decades. But as one of the comments to Bloom's article suggests:
Philip Giraldi says: April 23, 2013 at 5:56 pm Jason, get serious yourself. A cop can make an educated judgment on whether or not to use lethal force and he can do it in a split second. A drone cannot.
some seem to think these things are autonomous robots like something out of the Terminator series. They aren't. They're simply remotely controlled tools that law enforcement and the military use to gather intelligence or delivery ordinance in a slightly different way.
What Rand said during his filibuster and what he said today backs that up. If the law allows surveillance of a person with a warrant then that surveillance can be a drone, wiretap, or any other method available to the police. If the law says that a cop can use deadly force then the same goes for weather that weapon is in his hands or in a drone being guided by his hands.
What the bill he filibustered was trying to do was change the rules so that certain methods of surveillance and use of deadly force would be exempt from existing rules such as requiring a warrant for certain types of surveillance or when/how law enforcement is allowed to use deadly force. There's nothing magical about 'drones'.
And that's all Rand Paul is saying, a drone is a tool. What matters is the process for this tool be the same as the others. That's all.
comments powered by Disqus