Rand Paul, the hero who did the anti-drone filibuster turns around and decides using drones to murder liquor store thieves is perfectly OK. Killing Americans who are ‘dangerous’ is a slippery slope as we see overseas with our drones causing mayhem by killing Muslims left and right. Of course, this only makes them madder and madder and fires them up to do the same to us here as we saw this week! Cops killing inner city blacks has done very little to make our cities safer. The Bloomberg efforts to disarm the thugs has gone a long ways towards making NYC safer, for example.
“I’ve never argued against any technology being used when you have an imminent threat, an active crime going on,” Paul said. “If someone comes out of a liquor store with a weapon and fifty dollars in cash. I don’t care if a drone kills him or a policeman kills him.”
I suspect Rand Paul was probably mentally picturing some black dude holding up a liquor store which is why he was comfortable with using a drone to annihilate said thief. The entire problem with drone assassins is that these are always pictured as being used against whatever ethnic or religious affiliation one despises while using this against one’s own group is not possible and will be prevented at all costs.
Some people are irritated when I point out that many guns are used by white males for this purpose: Father, 42, ‘shot dead his orthodontist wife in their country club home while their daughter, 2, was inside’ and other terroristic fashions or sadly, suicide. Blacks often use guns as economic tools, for robberies or drug deals. Since illegal drug deal problems can’t be aired in court, they do the exo-judicial thing: guns are the ‘legal enforcers’ rather than laws. And indeed, the measures to close all those gaping loopholes in gun registrations is aimed directly at preventing arms flowing into inner cities where guns are used to rob stores or settle drug deal problems.
The picture Rand Paul paints is all about unregulated guns being used for criminal purposes yet he is against closing the gun registration loopholes. This puzzling ‘Let’s use draconian force to kill criminals’ is connected directly to ‘How dare liberals force us to register guns!’ A very odd thing indeed.
The fact of the matter is, the right wing is in hysterics about guns especially guns that can spray the vicinity thoroughly. They want the possibility to use guns to force legislators to pass laws that gun holders wish, not the general public wishes. The far right has been quite vocal about this use of guns for revolt. While at the same time, complaining about other ethnic groups using guns the exact same way. Rand Paul did upset libertarians enough for him to issue a ‘clarification’ that fixes nothing:
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.
A black teen robbing a liquor store with a pop gun is NORMAL. Not extraordinary at all. It happens quite often and if the cops show up, generally speaking, the teen surrenders after maybe trying to run away. In NYC under the stop and frisk policy of Bloomberg, these sorts of robberies dropped and this shows a simple rule: disarmament works! How is killing a teen running from a liquor store with a small handgun ‘an imminent threat’? Under that definition, nearly anything involving a gun is ‘an imminent threat’.
Listen carefully: if anyone believes that everyone should carry guns and then draw and shoot at many situations such as while trying to teach kindergarden children or fleeing an angry husband, how on earth will the drones that Ron Paul wants to patrol us, tell who is the bad guy? What if that hypothetical black teen fleeing the store is really the CLERK chasing the robber and has pulled a gun on him? I am not making this up, I have actually witnessed a clerk in NYC on Flatbush Avenue do exactly that!
Furthermore, once the police begin using drones to kill people for robbing liquor stores, we know that they will use it for absolutely everything including jay walking. The only time in my life I have ever been arrested was for jaywalking and that was done for political reasons. The charges dropped and the police had to apologize to me. Due to its political nature, there was a riot (this was Berkeley in the late sixties!) and they first wanted to charge me with that only I was cooperative with the arrest and even asked the rioters to stop when they tried to overturn the cop car I was in.
This was for self-survival, I didn’t want to be hurt if the car was overturned.
The fact is, governments use force whenever they think it will work and force has no upper limit. This is why we have Constitutional restrictions on government force and even more important, civil rights and this emphatically includes women’s rights, gay rights (slowly being won) and even the right of white males to not be killed by assassin drones. The drone that kills the black teen robbing a liquor store will be the same drone that kills a white guy who is arguing over a hedge cutting infraction with his neighbor.
P.O. BOX 483
BERLIN, NY 12022
Make checks out to ‘Elaine Supkis’
Click on the Pegasus icon on the right sidebar to donate via Paypal.