Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul said his position on using drones on Americans hasn't changed, clarifying an interview on Fox Business Network Tuesday that gave the impression he thought droning a liquor store robber might be OK. "My comments last night left the mistaken impression that my position on drones had changed. Let me be clear: it has not," Paul said in a statement Tuesday night. He thinks drones should be "considered in extraordinary, lethal situations," and "should not be used in normal crime situations."
In an nterview Tuesday, Paul said:
"I have never argued against any technology being used against having an imminent threat, an act of crime going on… 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."
That makes it sound like he's cool with a drone killing a small-time robber (or a police officer killing that robber!) after a crime is committed, and even if someone's life isn't in danger. But Paul instead that's not what he meant. Instead, he now says, "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."
This article is from the archive of our partner The Wire.
We want to hear what you think about this article. Submit a letter to the editor or write to firstname.lastname@example.org.