Rand Paul pulls a 180 on drone strikes directed at American citizens: "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." Wait, what?

"Shh, don't wake it, it's sleeping."

Courtesy of The Hill:

Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) said Tuesday that he would have supported police using drones in last week's hunt for Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, one of the brothers suspected in the Boston Marathon bombing. 

"If there is a killer on the loose in a neighborhood, I’m not against drones being used to search them," Paul told Fox Business Network. 

Last month, Paul conducted a nearly 13-hour filibuster on the Senate floor after the Obama Administration said in a letter that it was theoretically possible for President Obama to authorize a lethal drone strike on an American citizen under "extraordinary circumstances." The administration subsequently clarified that they did not believe the president had the authority to "use a weaponized drone to kill an American not engaged in combat." 

Paul said that the question of an "imminent threat" was the pivotal one when considering drone policy. 

“Here’s the distinction — I have never argued against any technology being used against having 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." 

Okay that "imminent threat" excuse does not hold any water in my opinion. What really seems to be the case is that Paul is perfectly fine with killing people, he just doesn't want anybody to spy on him while he is soaking his tiny Libertarian member in the hot tub.

Paul got ALL kinds of positive praise for holding in his urine for 13 hours to complain about the use of drone strikes,  which culminated with libertarians, college kids, and desperate pro-war Republicans throwing confetti all over his hairpiece.

But as far as I am concerned this statement the other day COMPLETELY undermines his argument, and provides ready made political advertisements for his future opponents.

And Paul, seeming to realize this, attempted to walk back his comments:

“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.”

 No his comments did not "leave the impression" that his "opinions had changed." They stated it outright!  Or, to play devil's advocate, they demonstrated an example of blatant hypocrisy.

In other words it is NOT okay for the President to use drones, but totally cool for local law enforcement to use them to gun down a guy with a bottle of stolen Jack Daniels in one hand and a fifty dollar bill in the other. How's THAT work?

Look I am not a fan of the use of drones either, though to be fair I much prefer them over having our soldiers coming home in body bags. And I appreciate the fact that this conversation about the appropriate use of drones has started. (You can see Alex Wagner's report on yesterday's Senate hearings on drone strikes here.)

However if Rand Paul thinks that he is still the "go to guy" on the appropriate use of this new technology he is fooling himself

As for the drones being used on American soil, unlike Rand Paul I am MUCH more at ease with the idea of them flying over my hot tub than having them open fire on American citizens. Somehow the idea of the government sneaking a peek at my trouser snake is much preferable to the idea that they might instead shoot it off.

But hey, that's just me.