Rand Paul sues Obama over NSA call surveillance

Your rant is not representative of reality. The fact is, the ACLU already initiated such a lawsuit in 2006, but it was dismissed because the plaintiff's could not prove they were being wire-tapped. It was only after Snowden leaked the official documentation concerning the NSA's domestic spying program that such proof became available.

When did Senator Paul ever say he was okay with a suspected robber being taken out by a drone on US soil?

 

1. He has tried to push through legislation and had zero support, this is his only choice. You seem to forget the times he voted against the NDAA, against this surveillance, and the legislation he tried to push through
2. He pointed out the use of drones for assassinations was unconstitutional, but rightly also pointed out it is a technology and a crime in progress could be stopped with either a gun or drone.

How is, in that instance, a drone different than a gun?

 

No different then what has always been done. I agree it should be halted, but I think he has an uphill battle

 

For one, much more destructive and I don't really feel comfort in knowing my apartment could become a warzone because some guy is in a high speed chase through my neighborhood. 2, I'm against killing anyone unless it's the only option. I'm for justice, not death. You shouldn't die for robbing a place and no one should be droning OR shooting a guy that is unruly but hasn't even been proven in a court of law to have committed violent acts against another person's health.

It's justice, but that's a completely different conversation I've stated my position on before. Drones, imo, make it easier to turn into a pure police state, which we're already down the road to becoming.

- - - Updated - - -

Straight from his mouth.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EmOGeBQzj4g

 

We know it's going to be a presidential talking point. But I'm also in the Rand Paul Is Crazy camp. He'll say something semi okay or even on point and then he'll say something completely irrational. But you can bet during the primaries, he's going to be harping on this at least a little bit and if it gains traction, he'll harp on it more. That's how politics works. Sure, he may be principled on it to a large degree, but don't mistake the fact that he's a career politician and pretty much all of them these days have agendas outside the polling of the needs and wants of the people they're supposed to be serving and I don't see him to be any different, especially since he's 'okay' in the eyes of the establishment early on. If the establishment isn't giving him blackout status, he's not doing his job for the people as well as he should be.

 

He didn't say he was okay with a drone killing someone who was merely suspected of a robbery. He was clearly talking about someone who presented an imminent threat to others.

 

The only reason he's doing it is to grandstand
If he were president he would keep it in place
Otherwise he would introduce legislation to restrict the surveillance

 

Well, I'll accept that you're going to defend him forever. I just think he's a bit...off kilter.

 

I will only defend him as long as he fights for justice.